Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 07 June 09 >

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus S. Campbell[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Sources do not demonstrate in-depth coverage in independent sources. MB 23:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Arizona. MB 23:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this poet. The article sourcing does not meet SIGCOV and is mostly primary sourcing. A google search does not reveal anything substantial, just social media-type hits. Fails GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he basically has one publication from earlier this year. There is just not enough coverage to justify an article at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, searched google and newspapers.com, did not find anything that would sway me from a lack of SIGCOV and TOOSOON arguments...but when searching by just "Marcus Campbell", the number of results were overwhelming. I did not do an exhaustive search at that point, so it's possible there may be something to be found. Jacona (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemani Roqara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is currently unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Iseult and @Ortizesp both sources listed by @EternalNomad do not meet GNG. The first mentions the subject once, in a passing manner, ie trivial mention. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source has twelve paragraphs, numbers 3-8 of which are about the subject and his coaching career and comments about the match he coached in. The second describes a final in which he scored a brace and appears in the headline; the match ended 3-1, and the fact that he won the final and editors thought fit to put him in the headline is indication of significance. Iseult Δx parlez moi 00:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, that's a blatant misrepresentation of the coverage: the first source is 12 paragraphs of single sentences, almost all of which are direct quotes or "Roqara said this". That fails SIGCOV handily. The second source is from the same newspaper, failing independent, and doesn't contain more than two passing mentions of Roqara, failing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source certainly mentions him more than once with several paragraphs describing his activities and his statements as coach. He is referred to as “Mr. Roqara”, “Koj Roqara”, etc. EternalNomad (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources in the article and above, and from my own search in Bislama, are exclusively interviews and passing mentions. A reporter relaying statements from the subject about an event he's running is not direct detailed coverage of the subject, and that's all the first source is. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3 sources are not enough and my google search did not bring up much proper articles. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, 3 sources is more than enough if they are SIGCOV and independent. In this case, there are two sources by different authors 5 years apart which I believe contain nontrivial coverage, meeting WP:GNG. EternalNomad (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the second one is trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In order to meet our notability requirements the sources must address the subject "directly and in-depth", and the sources must be simultaneously "independent". The only sources which address the subject "directly and in-depth" are interviews. Interviews are not considered independent sources. All of the non-interview sources are trivial passing mentions. Therefore, the article does not meet the minimum sourcing requirements to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Billy Sheehan#Niacin. History under the redirect if someone wants to merge it. This AfD does not need to be extended for that discussion to happen. Star Mississippi 15:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niacin (band)[edit]

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

Not notable. No valid results found on GBooks, Newspapers.com, or World Radio History. Deprodded with comment "this is getting problematic". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not any kind of violation at all; please correct your statement. This is the second nomination of yours where I've weighed in because PRODS are meant for uncontroversial deletions only. PQ returns more than a hundred results for Niacin + Billy Sheehan, for example; even if, say, 2/3 of those are passing mentions, this should have been at AfD from the beginning. There are articles from, at first glance, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, Guitar Player, Keyboard, Billboard, Bass Player, The Record, Toronto Star, Jazziz, AllMusic, Goldmine, The Buffalo News, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of what I'm finding is just name-drops in articles about Billy Sheehan. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect back to Billy Sheehan. This gig is not independently notable. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Billy Sheehan, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to its talk page on May 5. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 8 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 James Goodale. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge sourced information. Star Mississippi 15:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Age (TV series)[edit]

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

Prod declined due to previous prod in 2006. ProQuest yielded about 10 results on James Goodale, but any with "digital age" in them were just using the term generically and had nothing whatsoever to do with the show. Likewise when I searched Newspapers.com, GBooks, and GNews -- everything that had the phrase "digital age" was a false positive. The current sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY. Evidence points to this only airing on one affiliate (WNYE-TV), and adding that to the search results did not improve them any. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:34, 1 June 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?) 23:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to James Goodale, the show's creator/host. Points are definitely added that the show's entire archive is up on YouTube, so the external links can also be placed in his BLP. Nate • (chatter) 19:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to have already been done. MaxnaCarter (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find any sources demonstrating the subject meeting notability guidelines. I did a thorough check of Newspapers.com and Wayback given some older TV shows do not show up in Google. I do not support a merge because the article on Goodale already has this in there and there is not much to add to that section. MaxnaCarter (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to James Goodale (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Preserving the history will allow editors to do a selective merge to the target article and to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to James Goodale, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to its talk page on May 5. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 8 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 11:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wulf Kessler[edit]

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

Even though the subject has a German Wikipedia article, the sourcing both there and on en.wiki is very poor. His only big role was in Die Weisse Rose, which means he does not meet WP:NACTOR. I have seen no substantial coverage of him nor has a newspaper search via Factiva yielded any results. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 8 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. The main policy-based arguments to keep the article rest on the significant, ongoing coverage of the event in international news and academic outlets, which they argue makes the event meet the notability standard for inclusion of events on Wikipedia. The strongest argument to delete the article is that the earthquake did not cause enough damage or was not a unique enough phenomenon. This argument to delete has merit, but the weight of the policy-based arguments to keep the article is stronger due to the ongoing coverage of the event. Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Valparaiso earthquake[edit]


2017 Valparaiso earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No impact from the event in a region that is very active seismically. There are destructive earthquakes in Chile, but this is not one of them. There are some scientific papers on the event, but their coverage focuses on non-notable aspects of the event including "historical seismicity, and scientists' seismic inversion of the event". These are not characteristics that make earthquakes notable in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes). Dawnseeker2000 18:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure what to vote. However, although it is definitely not an extremely noteworthy earthquake, the article goes into great detail and it was also an important event in the 2010s. It caused no great damages, but prompted a tsunami warning. I'm more inclined to think it should be kept, but very weakly. --Bedivere (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes earthquakes notable is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this appears to have (see my contestation of WP:PROD deletion and my reply on my talk page), not an essay about earthquakes that seems to be focussed on impact rather than sources, or how seismically active the region is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the above. And yet there is a lot of sources and I wondered if anyone has reviewed them or has more expertise in assessing them than me. CT55555 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't reviewed the sources in the article, but I have looked at the ones I mentioned above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – More of a list rather than an article about the earthquake. Nothing is really elaborated about the actual event and there is no lasting impact. Really not notable or important. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I commented above, but now !vote keep on the basis of:
  1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/4/24/earthquake-strikes-off-coast-of-valparaiso
  2. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/the-inside-scoop-on-the-chilean-earthquake-swarm/
  3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/chile-regrets-panic-caused-by-mistaken-tsunami-warning-after-earthquake
  4. 2021 article that briefly talks about it (that is important, that the coverage is ongoing) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/chile-regrets-panic-caused-by-mistaken-tsunami-warning-after-earthquake
And the ones mentioned by User:Phil_Bridger on his talk page. I agree with Phil_Bridger, it's not about our assessments of the side of the earthquake, it's about the notability of the earthquake. Quoting from Phil_Bridger's talk page:
A minor comment that the 2021 Guardian source mentioned an 8.3 earthquake in 2017, but the linked url to that 8.3 earthquake was dated 2015. The earthquake in discussion is a magnitude 6.9 which I don't think they intended to mention. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see anything significant about this earthquake. It might have a big magnitude however quakes of this size are pretty common and undamaging with no long lasting impact for Chile. The article also contains only lists with barely any written paragraphs as well as no important aspects about the earthquake (which it had hardly any). Reego41 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)— Reego41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - This article has literally no purpose at all. The quake was nothing significant seismologically, other than being another average 6+ Chilean burp. And the fact that people are saying that this article is being cited by numerous "independent reliable sources" does not help this case at all. Since like many other people have said above me, what significance does the event itself hold? CoaÏ (Moctalk with me) 04:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)— Moctiwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - This earthquake had no impacts, it was just a typical large Chile earthquake. Like others have said, the event getting a lot of media coverage doesn't contribute to its importance. Any earthquake of this magnitude hitting a populated area gets media coverage, what matters is that the quake has damaging effects. Which this didn't. MagikMan1337 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)— MagikMan1337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I think you and the posters above are missing the point of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Getting media attention is what proves notability. Your original research or opinions about the size, impact, of an earthquake are not grounded in wikipedia policy.
    Our task at AfD is less to share our opinions on importance, and more discussing notability which is inherently linked to media coverage. CT55555 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, yes I do see that there is a decent amount of media coverage, I do see what you mean however the articles about this earthquake mostly focus on the seismic characteristics of the quake (which is the case with every quake with little to no impact that have a decently big magnitude) and historical seismicity in the area which doesn't relate to the present-time. I would also like to mention that this quake was not mentioned on the media for long; it was only notable for a short time since this event is not rare and is rather usual. There's just no need to have an article for every quake that we see on the news with a quick and small article about it; there is no obligation to have it, maybe common sense could be applied and significance and importance can be used as a factor. Reego41 17:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Let's go through CT55555's sources one-by-one (provided by Dawnseeker2000)

I'm going to make some comments on the sources that were listed numerically. Feel free to reply to any comments.

  1. Al Jazeera – It says (right in the title) that "Magnitude 7.1 temblor off Valparaiso did not cause any serious damage", and in the text of the article it also states "in general the situation is pretty normal bearing in mind the quake’s intensity". No EQ article can be based on this source.
  2. Scientific American – Again, this one says right in the title "According to locals, Valparaiso's 6.9 isn't worthy of being called an earthquake" and down in the article text it says "As you're about to see, residents of this South American country require their quakes to be quite a bit more substantial before they're impressed."
  3. The Guardian – This article is about the Chilean government's apology about the evacuation notice: "The ministry also sent a message to mobile phones around the country urging people to abandon coastal areas, though the ministry later said it was sent in error" and "He said the agency regretted the inconvenience caused by its messages, which he blamed on a technical error."
  4. This is the same The Guardian article.
  5. doi:10.1002/2017GL074767 – This journal article talks about scientists' interest in potential seismic gaps, the modeling of stress transfer, comparison to other events, and other events in the area. If this were an EQ with some impact on people, places, or things, these discussions could certainly be included, but not without.
  6. doi:10.1002/2017GL075675 – This article talks about the results of a seismic inversion, a process that attempts to find the origin and type of faulting, a process that is pretty standard in earthquake investigations. The inversion itself is definitely not notable, but it could be included in an article about an earthquake that had some other valid reason for being notable.
  7. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2018.03.007 – This is another seismic inversion, which is WP:ROUTINE. Nothing to write about in an encyclopedia.
Notability is not about small or big. There are articles about small events, tiny things, abstract concepts. Notability is about things making the news. There is not a minimum richter scale for articles, no matter how much you might want that to be how things work. Things can be notable for being boring. For being small. For being mislabeled. For being mild. It made that news. That is the key thing here. CT55555 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before you spend a lot of time typing out many times that each of the sources I mentioned don't say that this is a very big earthquake it might make more sense to just conclude that I am !voting keep because the subject of the article is notable as per the WP:GNG guidelines and you are voting delete because you have a perspective that you think earthquake articles should only be created based on their size, perhaps based on the essay WP:N(EQ), with complete disregard for Wikipedia notability criteria. Forcing us to both repeat our stances on that is not helpful. Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) is not policy, not guidance, just an essay, just the opinion of one or more people, it does not superseded WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You typed out on 1 June: "I wondered if anyone has reviewed them or has more expertise in assessing them than me" so I'm taking the time to evaluate the sources for everyone that's interested. Dawnseeker2000 04:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems disingenuous, I said I did not evaluate another editor's source, then I came back later and added my own sources. If you want to evaluate my sources, please evaluate them against guidance and policy and quote the policy. CT55555 (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dawnseeker2000 Please stop moving my comments down (I replied to your number 2) and please sign your comments. CT55555 (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of Dawnseeker2000's findings above are things that could be included in the article, because they are confirmed by reliable sources. I have some sympathy with those who call for deletion on the grounds that this is not important enough, but the majority opinion here seems to agree with the "GNG fundamentalists" who seem to think that the general notability guideline, which this easily passes, is the only one that counts, with all other guidelines (except possibly for WP:PROF and WP:CORP) being subordinate to it. And, as has been seen in the recent changes to the sports notability guidelines, we seem to be moving in that direction. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT I understand that we'll all have our own interpretation of this, but the summary of WP:EVENT is "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."

Now, we all agree that this series of earthquakes did not lead to any lasting impacts and that there is no or little geographical scope. We have argued about the coverage, but my arguments are that it is only routine coverage. The websites all say that there were no serious consequences. The power was out for some folks for some amount of time, but that is not notable. So the news sites' coverage is routine. The journal articles' coverage is also routine because they talk about the non-notable inversion or simply compare the series of shocks to other historical events.

"Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally."

I think it is fair to say that it is a run-of-the-mill event. Dawnseeker2000 04:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That reporting about a 2017 event was still happening in 2018 and 2022 refutes this. The size and impact of the earthquake are not part of any notability guidelines (I note the essay that you co-authored, but it is just that, an essay, some people's opinions, not consensus or policy).
WP:ROUTINE is about (and I quote) Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs not scientific papers, or full articles about events. This is not relevant here.
Run-of-the-mill is defined at WP:ROUTINE as common, everyday, ordinary items and I don't think any reasonable analysis of an earthquake that makes international news and provokes academic papers is "everyday" or "ordinary". If it was, I would not have been able to share the global news coverage, the academic papers.
I have sympathy for the position you are attempting to argue from many angles. I see that you want only large earthquakes to be notable. But our job is to make arguments on the policy we have, not the policy we want.
I could make a very passionate argument that no bank robbery is notable if less than $1m was stolen. I could make very compelling arguments for that. But if CNN and Al Jazeera put a smaller robbery on the front page and if that provoked various universities to write about it, that would make it notable, no matter how compelling a logical argument I made about the notability of a $500,000 robbery.
Ultimately, we don't decide what is notable. The news media and the university faculty and the book authors do. How they decide what is notable may not match our wishes. I think you might need to accept that human interest is about qualitative factors as well as quantifiable factors. CT55555 (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article does not read as a comprehensive recount of the events, but rather a list. There is very little useful information, but much frivolous information given in tables with little relevance to the topic at hand. More importantly, however, I do not believe that this article even meets notability criteria to be included in the first place. Chile routinely gets magnitude ~7 earthquakes. This specific earthquake did nothing more than startle some locals. Dawnseeker2000 has provided well written "debunks" of each cited article and I stand with it. This article should not exist under the notability guidelines. SamBroGaming (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)— SamBroGaming (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Which notability guidelines? The general notability guideline doesn't dictate what sources must say, but simply that they must exist with significant coverage. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I voted earlier but reasoning again. There is no encyclopedic value in the coverage. Media coverage of this event is routine: an earthquake struck, people scared, minimal impact. Not continuous and fails WP:EVENT. This sort of reporting is consistent with earthquakes. That does not make the event worthy of an article. Keeping this would make the encyclopedia a news journal. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has plenty of coverage outside news reports in academic books and papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The results of published academic works need to have a level of encyclopedic worthiness. DS2000 went through three sources, reasons I agree with. These ten papers about this event (with varying emphasis) are not worth stating since the event itself has no impact in the first place. I would expect a great deal of important findings for this non-damaging earthquake in order to vote keep. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As someone who has experienced various mid to high end M6 earthquakes, including this one, I don't consider it to be worthy of having an own article. Despite the intensity of the event, it's odd that these events cause major disruption in Chile and the 2017 event was another example of it. It can be argued that the intense sequence that came with it helped highlight it better, but all in all it doesn't stand out too much in the context of the area. Other similar, nearby quakes, like the April 17th 2012 M6.7 event or the August 23rd 2014 M6.4 event, which I also felt strongly, lack their own articles for reasonable reasons, since they hardly went beyond minor disrupton, aside from small cracks or minor landslides. Therefore I think it's worth deleting this article. Melimoyu (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)— Melimoyu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: Or Merge (somewhere). Natural events belong in Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on that? Obviously natural events get their own articles on Wikipedia, but not every single one. Only the notable events that were particularly damaging or scientifically interesting receive articles. MagikMan1337 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's only the notable events that have their own articles on Wikipedia, and this one is notable per the significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There seem to be many editors coming to this discussion and talking about some definition of notability that does square with our consensus-agreed definition. "Particulary damaging" appears nowhere in our guidelines, and "scientifically interesting" is shown by the sources that have been cited in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources explicitly say that the earthquake wasn't interesting... What are you talking about? MagikMan1337 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into List of earthquakes in Chile, whatever it is useful. As I wrote above in a comment, the earthquake itself wasn't particularly relevant; it provoked a tsunami alert, prompting evacuations, and that was it. However, there are some definitely interesting sources in the article. I still think it is not particularly relevant, but sources tend to prove otherwise. --Bedivere (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging unwanted content to the various lists of earthquakes was done back in the first decade of WP, but that is no longer done because the lists also have certain criteria that must be adhered to. In other words, the list articles in the earthquake space must also contain only notable events. They are not merely dumping grounds. Dawnseeker2000 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you're correct. That's why I suggested merging whatever it is useful. If nothing is useful (hence not even making this worthy of a redirect) then it should be deleted. Bedivere (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NEVENT. From the sources cited in the article and listed above, we can clearly see PERSISTENT significant coverage that is international in scope (WP:GEOSCOPE) and inclusive of scientific journal articles , science magazine articles, and both local and global media (WP:DIVERSE). Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) is an essay and is not policy. SIGCOV and NEVENT are policies, and I am not seeing a strong case for deletion supported by policy.4meter4 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not noteworthy enough. Bdonjctalk
  • Keep, no policy-based rationale for deletion, appears to have ample sourcing to support an article. There may be a reasonable question as to whether it's ideal to have a separate article rather than having it covered in List of earthquakes in Chile (which would need to be restructured to be a suitable merge target). But that can be dealt with through the collaborative editing process, among knowledgeable editors in the topic area; AFD has no role here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this is a good time to ask someone leaning towards keep: If kept, what is the encyclopedic value of an article like this? Dawnseeker2000 00:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I subscribe to the prime objective: we're here to create, as nearly as possible under various legal and practical constraints, a free and open encyclopedia that makes the sum of all human knowledge available and accessible to every reader. Given that objective, I see no reason why an earthquake that has received coverage in multiple reliable sources should not be covered in some form, and I trust that editors in the topic area will best be able to determine exactly what form that coverage should take. Whether or not this should optimally be a freestanding article, it certainly seems useful and encyclopedic in its current form, at least for anyone who might be seeking information on this particular quake; and anybody not seeking such information would be unlikely to suffer any harm from its existence. Any questions about exactly how this earthquake should be covered, and whether it should be merged elsewhere can be addressed by finding positive-sum solutions through the wiki process. There is no need (nor policy basis) for a drastic remedy like deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, what would you say the reader walks away with after reading this article (in terms of knowledge)? I don't think it exceeds what the USGS has for the events (I've been generous with the terms of this search). Dawnseeker2000 17:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This quake is irrelevant, pls delete. Sausius (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — Sausius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete I believe there's not enough information on this earthquake however I support this do be merged into List of earthquakes in Chile with a brief overview of the quake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekromu88 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — Zekromu88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The lists of earthquakes also have minimum requirements to be listed. This series of shocks don't align with those minimums. Dawnseeker2000 00:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO CLOSER. There is a high volume of single-purpose accounts voting delete in this discussion. I suspect that either WP:Sockpuppetry or WP:Meatpuppetry is vote stacking at this AFD. Please consider the strength of the arguments based on policy rather than mere vote count in your close.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan McElwaine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant secondary independent sources.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://donegalnews.com/2022/02/mcelwaine-eager-to-impress-with-the-exiles/ Yes Yes No "Nathan McElwaine has enjoyed his baptism into senior intercounty football" and "McElwaine has lined out at corner-back in their victories over Carlow and Waterford" ✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0129/1276591-london-produce-stirring-comeback-to-down-carlow/ Yes Yes No text: "Nathan McElwaine" ✘ No
https://www.gaa.ie/football/football-league-roinn-4/london-waterford/2126013/ Yes Yes No nothing there on him ✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0220/1281924-london-boost-promotion-chances-after-edging-out-leitrim/ Yes Yes No text "Nathan McElwaine" ✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0227/1283311-wexford-come-good-to-end-londons-unbeaten-run/ Yes Yes No text "Nathan McElwaine" ✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0313/1286115-sligo-rout-london-to-boost-promotion-chances/ Yes Yes No text "Nathan McElwaine" ✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0320/1287383-cavan-survive-london-rally-to-take-victory-in-ruislip/ Yes Yes No "Sean Hickey for Nathan McElwaine" ✘ No
https://www.gaa.ie/football/news/connacht-sfc-leitrim-battle-past-london/ Yes Yes No nothing ✘ No
https://westernpeople.ie/2022/05/28/london-and-sligo-involved-in-tailteann-cup-thriller/ Yes Yes No nothing ✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/football/2022/0528/1301725-egans-extra-time-strike-helps-sligo-survive-london/ Yes Yes No text "subs ... Oladimeji Olajubu for Nathan McElwaine" ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 8 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 11:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Maddock High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 8 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 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operating system advocacy[edit]

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

Not sure how this contains any information that isn't covered in Advocacy or Advertising. An unremarkable flavor of an otherwise remarkable topic. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:24, 8 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! 03:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McBrearty[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG criteria. Sources are either passing mentions or primary, and primary cannot be used for notability.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://billhillwicklow.com/player/kevin-mcbrearty/ Yes Yes No Brief listing ✘ No
https://www.the42.ie/galway-donegal-allianz-league-report-3833590-Feb2018/ Yes Yes No Total text for him: "sub... Kevin McBrearty for Thompson" ✘ No
https://donegalnews.com/2014/12/thirteen-new-faces-on-gallaghers-first-donegal-panel/ Yes Yes No Text: "Kevin McBrearty (Four Masters)" ✘ No
https://www.donegaldaily.com/2019/10/07/listen-mcbrearty-and-four-masters-avoid-absolute-disaster/ No Interview ? "Donegal Sport Hub – in association with the Radisson Blu Hotel Letterkenny – is a website dedicated to sport in the county." ? full interview missing from website ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

APCB[edit]

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

APCB is a stub, but has little verifiable information, only one reference. Although the reference is cited 238 times, this seems to be the only verifiable reference regarding APCB. APCB has no apparent notability, simple Google search of 'APCB' doesn't bring up anything, neither does the English name. You have to search 'Association de Pilotage des Conférences B' to find their official website, which was last updated in 2013, and as far as I am aware, has not organized another conference since. Hadal1337 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergewith Z User Group. Excellent flag. APCB really does not need its own standalone article. It can have a short sub-section or mention on the Z User Group page, which it has essentially "combined with" since 2000. Then, after merging, if someone wants to redirect the Z User Group page to ABZ Conference (or whatever the appropriate target turns out to be), that may be for the best. Let me know if you need help. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree, quote from Z User Group "From 2000, these became the ZB Conference (jointly with the B-Method, co-organized with APCB)". Doesn't infer to me that it has essentially "combined with", but instead just co-organizers. Also for the quote, there is no reference/citation to back up that claim so we're back to square one. Hadal1337 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a reference to APCB page – but yes, I don't think Z User Group is the final destination necessarily, but what I'm saying is that APCB should be merged with Z User Group as a first / interim step. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I see where you're coming from, but I'm still leaning towards delete. I was actually planning on submitting an AfD for Z User Group due to it being created by the group chair, questionable official website, primary sources, not enough notability etc. I guess let's see the outcome of APCB first. Hadal1337 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK. Go ahead and delete APCB. It has almost no information, as you say in your original nomination, and it literally has had an average of 1 pageview per day since it was created. No one will miss it. I'm not sure what the fate of Z User Group should be, but that's a separate discussion. (There are many more BLP pages connected to the Z User Group page, etc.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a new section based on this article in the B-Method article is most appropriate in my view since APCB is/was intended as a support group for the B-Method. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, delete or redirect (to what target?)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on the fact that most people on the Internet looking for APCB are looking for APCB Electronics in Thailand (or possibly other entities in the APCB Group) (per Google Trends). Hardly anyone is looking for "Association de Pilotage des Conférences B" which hasn't updated its own web site since 2013, unless they click on a blue link from one of the other Wikipedia pages that link to the current page (which we should un-redlink if this page is deleted). (Many of those pages are in need of some updating in general too.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated in my original post. Hadal1337 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No duplicate !votes, please. ✗plicit 11:48, 13 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 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of taxation in the United States[edit]

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

This article is only one sentence long and fails to explain much of anything Ravens (talk). 21:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin is the creator of the article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fiachra10003. Another article is unnecessary. Azuredivay (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. It's a notable topic, and it's actually one that I would love to write about. However, the content on the page is one sentence putting a claim in Wikivoice that the tax code is too inefficient. But nothing in the article is worth rescuing at this point. I've created the page Draft:Economics of taxation in the United States for the sake of writing a page and moving it into the mainspace after I can get it to C-class length, but the current mainspace article very literally fits the bill of the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject belongs to articles about Taxation in the United States or similar to that. Even its one line of definition is not just a triviality empty of any kind of valuable knowledge but also a contentious, arbitrary assertion ("The complexity of the US tax code causes economic inefficiency" - yes, some would argue, and so do taxes per se). I would suggest a Merge if there was something here but there isn't. Let's blow it up and allow anyone who feels strongly of the subject's independent importance to try their hand. -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynch (songwriter)[edit]

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

PROD rationale was: Unable to verify the apparent Emmys win - searching the Emmy website for David Lynch only spits out famous director David Lynch, not a songwriter. No significant coverage located otherwise.

De-PROD'd with the argument that the guy's own website claims that he has won an Emmy, therefore the deletion is "not uncontroversial". I'm sorry, but there's a reason we don't take self-published sources at their word without backing evidence. De-PRODing an endorsed PROD because of an SPS claim with zero other sourcing is incredibly shoddy work and forcing an AfD here without any evidence of independent sourcing whatsoever is a waste of everyone's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're omitting the part that I verified Golden Reel wins. It's not clear that's enough to establish notability but it is at least evidence that the SPS is not all lies and so further discussion is merited. I did not interpret your statement as asserting the subject did not win an Emmy but that you could not find the evidence because of the other David Lynch casts a longer shadow. Apologies if I misinterpreted. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's that the only results for the name "David Lynch" on the Emmy's site were for the filmmaker. The Golden Reel wins are meaningless given the absence of coverage about his winning of them; WP:NBASIC requires significant coverage in multiple sources. If an award falls in a forest and not a single media outlet reports the sound, it contributes nothing to a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Golden Reels awards are coming up under "D. L. Lynch". We do have topic-specific notability criterion that presumes notability for winners of certain prestigious awards. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the Golden Reel Awards for Sound Editing are recorded on Wikipedia (as part of a larger article, mind you, not even their own) is not prima facie evidence that they are "a well-known and significant award or honor". If there is minimal significant coverage of people winning a given type of award, it is an indication that they are in fact not particularly culturally significant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no proof of the Emmy win exists, and the Golden Reel does not appear to be a significant award. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, real hard to verify this as the other David Lynch also has several Emmys. If someone can find proof of the Emmys, I will change my vote. Zeddedm (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As near as I can tell, the Emmy was not given specifically to him but, rather, to the team of people who worked on a show that won an Emmy for post-production audio. That's likely why it's hard to verify...because one has to look deep into the credits of the list of people who worked in the audio recording department for the show. Also, it's a technical award, one of many given at both national and regional chapter levels. It's not an award that would indicate he is notable musician, or sound engineer for that matter. And because of this lack of individual recognition, there are no RS's to earn a keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability found. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole rigmarole is most probably due to the confusion between this Lynch and the other one, the film maker. Notability monitor for this person shows a flat line. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Austria international footballers (1–24 caps). RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Oppenheim[edit]

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

This stub about a guy who played one football game in 1909 is wholly sourced to two database entries. A BEFORE shows it fails WP:GNG, with searches for Harry Oppenheim on Google and Google books mostly turning up other people with the same name, and searching with the alleged date of birth only turns up Wikipedia mirrors. The database sourcing on their own fail WP:SPORTCRIT. NFOOTY no longer exists. Indy beetle (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In short redirection is only a valid ATD if the people searching for Harry Oppenheim are only going to be looking for the person who played one match for the Austrian national squad, and if the list of national squad players is what they are going to be looking for. Otherwise we are preventing them from finding the other Harry Oppenheims covered by Wiki, or the other roles that this Harry Oppenheim played. As we can see there are actually a lot of other subjects they may be looking for, and even if they are looking for this Harry Oppenheim, they may well not be looking for the list of national squad players.
@Indy beetle/Samanthany - I see that WP:NFOOTY is now obsolete but I'm having trouble finding the discussion where this was decided, can you help me with a link? FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: I believe it was an outgrowth of this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Follow-up discussions to that RfC took place on the NSPORTS talk page which I did not follow as closely. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think this is the one? Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_49#Association_football_(soccer) - basically it was a pure participation-based standard and the general RFC decided against that, and no replacement was agreed on. Anyway, even with WP:CHEAP I think keeping this as a redirect stops people from discovering the other potential search targets and it really isn't likely that anyone is really searching for this particular guy looking for lists of Austrian national football players who played a single game in 1909, so delete it is. FOARP (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it highly unlikely that readers will be searching for this specific fellow and be greatly informed by a redirect to list of one/two-match football players from the early 1900s. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet inclusion criteria, and nothing suggests this person would actually be the primary search target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to this database someone with the same birthday called Heinrich Oppenheim also played for First Vienna FC at the same time the subject here was supposed to have been playing for them according to the Italian version of this article and various databases. Either Harry Oppenheim had a twin brother or this article is actually wrong or at least has the wrong name. Given the fact that "Harry" is not a common given name in German, but instead used as a nickname, I think we can say the name of this article is almost certainly a mistake, the result of creating large numbers of content-less articles based on a low-quality database, and especially as we already have an article about a different Heinrich Oppenheim it should be deleted and not redirected because in reality it had the wrong name to start with. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears no more or less reliable than the source which you used to create the article with, which described Oppenheim using what is almost certainly a nickname. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources' reliability are fine per the project's list of sources that can be used. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of beside the point here, all those sources should probably be evaluated on their own merits. It looks like those are simply added on the whim of various users. Not to say that means they aren't reliable, but those links don't appear to be getting approval or review from more than one person. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Harry Oppenhiem was part of the wealthy Oppenhiem family who were also land owners, played for First Vienna FC and SK Rapid Wien, winning a couple of honours in Austria which in turn allowed him a match with the national team. He might be mentioned in First Vienna FC: Fußballfibel isbn: 978-3944068916 or SK Rapid Wien: Fußballfibel isbn: 978-3944068923 . There are newspapers at the time, there is room to improve the article and plenty of research can be done into this person. Possible that he can pass WP:GNG quite easily. It's all down to the research and who wants to do it. I am with Lugnuts on this, redirect is cheap and allows future people to do the correct research if they want. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only makes sense if this guy is the Heinrich Oppenheim that people are searching for. He isn't, because we already have an article about a Heinrich Oppenheim. Redirection is NOT for storing information - if anyone wants to get this article back (and why would they when it basically contains no information?) they can just request an undelete. FOARP (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point of the redirect, the redirect is going to a list and not a name. And besides, Oppenhiem's are all related to each other in one way or another. Oppenheim family, although Harry is not on the list there, that's a very incomplete list. I know a little bit about this family through my family history. Not much know. Govvy (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Lugnuts. GiantSnowman 13:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - the suggested sources mentioned by Govvy make this almost essential as we'll lose the page history and so on otherwise. It'll also stop anyone recreating the article quickly, there's an obvious ATD and redirects work much better than any other method of finding people. Right now he seems to be the only notable Harry O we have. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Favonian (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Fvck[edit]

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

At the very least this page should be moved to the draft space because it doesn't satisfy its notability at the moment beyond "It is a Lovato album". Draft:Esquemas, an album released weeks ago by a notable singer, is still in the draft space due to the lack of its own notability. If we analyze the sources here, only two of them are about the album. Source 1 (j-14.com) dicusses Lovato's career. It mentions the album but merely repeats what it is said "according to a press release". Source 2 (Paper) is about how Lovato held a "funeral" for her pop music career in January. It is too soon to determine if this album lacks pop influences to find it relevant here. Source 3 (thatgrapejuice.net) is about an I promise an emo-rock album, once again too soon to determine if relevant to the page. Source 4 (Billboard) is about Lovato announcing the album. Source 5 (iHeart) is about how Lovato "shared a stunning collection of new photos - once again teasing lyrics". Source 6 (Billboard) is about Skin of My Teeth, not about the album itself. This album will be relevant by July or August, but now it is too soon to have this page on the main space. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Demi Lovato or Draftify. I had tried to redirect this page several days ago but was met with fierce option in the with comments like "release date announced WITH cassettes and vinyls put up on website (which, I would argue, makes it unlikely to be postponed), 2. lead single coming this Friday, 3. nothing repeated from the main article here apart from the release of the lead single. Also enough sources to make this notable already", then Restoring article and reverting Lil-unique1. Even a Holy Fvck Tour page was created so at this point it's getting ridiculous that its parent album would not get its own article. Please stop edit warring per WP:BRD and/or put it to discussion if you disagree. This page is absolutely fine to exist.. There is an established principle that other stuff existing is NOT a valid reason for an article to be kept. WP:CRYSTAL says " All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." - this is not the case for Holy Fvck. Beyond this, the article fails WP:SIGCOV as the artist's website is a primary source, half of the coverage isn't about the album itself and ThatGrapeJuice is a trashy blog with no editorial standards or qualifications. WP:NOTCATALOG says "Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business.". Creating a page this early on for an album screams of promotion for the topic when the availability of coverage is so low. The artist could be dropped from their label, the project could be scrapped, the track listing could change as could the title. No one reverting the redirect has provided any procedural or policy reasons as to why a page was needed and a mention at the artist's page would not suffice. If that wasn't enough, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - that's all fine and well if the sourcing isn't there...but it is in this case. High level dedicated sourcing from the likes of Pitchfork, Loudwire, etc - reliable third party sources. It meets the WP:GNG. And they've mustered up a paragraph or two of content. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, we've got:
  1. https://loudwire.com/demi-lovato-rock-album-holy-fvck-trailer-video/
  2. https://pitchfork.com/news/demi-lovato-announces-new-album-holy-fvck/
  3. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/demi-lovato-holy-fvck-north-american-tour-1364078/
  4. https://consequence.net/2022/06/demi-lovato-holy-fvck-album-tour/
  5. https://people.com/music/demi-lovato-announces-new-album-holy-fvck/
  6. https://www.kerrang.com/amp/demi-lovato-announces-hellish-new-rock-album-holy-fvck
All dedicated to the subject. All considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information has to go beyond the existence of the album and has to demonstrate that the information is too much for the artist page. Creating an album page without a lack of reasonable information fails WP:NALBUMS and becomes a promotional vehicle. That's not what wikipedia is for. NALBUMS trumps GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, NALBUMS does not trump the GNG, not that it matters, because you can still merge things that meet either guideline anyways. That said, your whole proposal is a waste of everyone's time. There's already enough sourcing, and someone already mustered up a paragraph of content. Why waste everyone's time when it's certainly going to created upon release anyways. It's not overtly promotional in tone, nor was it created by some sort of promotional SPA account. This is silly. Articles like this survive all the time. I'm honestly baffled this is so contentious. Is there some sort of factor among editors or the fanbase I'm unaware of or something? I know nothing of Demi Lovato other than they did a song for Frozen (I think?) and announced this album recently. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't my proposal to nominate for deletion. Its just standard content policies. You create a page for something when there is enough reliably sourced information to warrant one. TB Hotch correctly pointed out some of the information mentions the album in passing. Had the album already come out we would never create a page for this little information. Hopes for future notability have never been a reason to create a page regardless of how certain something is to happen or become notable. And you're wrong - NALBUMS has some precedence over GNG - if there were 1 million sources talking about the album but no information beyond the tracklisting and existence it would not be notable for its own page. "Articles like this survive all the time" is WP:OTHERSTUFF. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The core parts we disagree are the things that are subjective though. I merely say there is enough sources and content to warrant creation already. Absolutely nothing objectively makes my keep stance invalid. And your "we would never keep articles with this little content" statement is just as much OSE as mine was. Not that it matters, what I said wasn't part of my core argument, just an observation of someone who participated in AFDs for over a decade - the sourcing I found is usually more than enough to keep an article. Which is again why I'm baffled and left feeling like there's other factors involved or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are enough sources for Draft:Battle of Bakhmut (2022) as well, yet here we are (and before the lecturing "other stuff exist" comment arrives, the album has not proved any notability outside its title). (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know nothing of that subject, the history behind it, or subject area, so I have absolutely no idea if that's the correct decision being made there. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely keep. A lot of confirmed information from reputable sources and a soon-to-be-released album (only 2 months to go) from a famous artist. Clearly the people have spoken and the vast majority have said keep. I love Demi, but I would vote keep regardless. Piratetales (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piratetales: Notability is not inherited. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, they very clearly also said "A lot of confirmed information from reputable sources" so their stance is not a NOTINHERITED violation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By "a lot" you mean a) it's title b) it's release date c) confirmed tracks. That's not relevant outside Lovato's biography. Please don't attempt to gaslight me becaue you will not succeed. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's gaslighting anyone. All I said was that your accusation of NOTINHERITED was cherry-picking their argument. Because that's the only think you commented on in response. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough out there on this album, whether it's currently reflected in the sources on the article or not, to demonstrate that this is a notable topic, and it will only grow more notable as we approach its release date in August (two months away). Lovato is a high-profile pop artist; the album isn't just going to fade out of relevance before release, especially as they appear to be (or claiming that they are) shifting genres. Even draftifying the article is just delaying the inevitable re-creation of the article. Ss112 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And once that happens we can move the article back to main space. What's the urgency to have an independent page that merely repeats what Demi_Lovato#2022: Holy Fvck already says? (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tbhotch: Because the topic is notable on its own and therefore does not need to be relegated to a section of the artist's main article. I thought I made that quite clear. Is your plan to disagree with everybody voting keep? It does not and will not help your initial nomination. Ss112 20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concern I can disagree with anyone I want to, especially when their comment(s) are poorly founded. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact your kept post is so flawed that you start saying, paraphrased, "Even though the current article is so poorly shaped that it's current sources on the article don't reflect its notability, the topic is notable on it's own because there's enough out there that accredit the album as notable". What's exactly enough? a title, an album cover, two confirmed songs, and a background full of speculation based upon what the primary source has said? I mean if that's enough to create pages, then I should start to feel free to create hundreds of barely-notable stubs on already existing topics that lack articles solely because a single reliable source backs-up a claim or because three different sources mention the same information. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody ever said you couldn't. I said it's not helping your case. Your nomination and assessment of the topic's notability is what's actually poorly founded. You claim there's nothing more than the existence of the title yet but that's categorically untrue. There's a lead single being released tomorrow, another track confirmed, the cover art released, a tour announced, the track list will be along in due time, and even more significant than all of that, Lovato signaling the change of their genre from the last 10 years of their career. That's enough for an album article to exist two months ahead of its release. Ss112 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbhotch, that's great, but there's more here than one source and it's more than a stub and only going to grow. Straw-manning and "what about this other stuff that's in draftspace" arguments are weak. Your disagreement with my !vote doesn't invalidate it. Your disagreement won't invalidate any !vote. Ss112 20:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of question is that? What's the urgency in creating notable articles? Because we're building an encyclopedia...? Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right? It's basically just arguing for the sake of it at this point. "Gosh, what's the urgency in saying that this man just died? His body's not even cold yet!" LOL. Ss112 21:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic ready to be expanded in the next few weeks and months. Unnecessary to keep it in draft space as a "full-fledged" article will come to fruition sooner than later. More websites have reported on the album since the article was first started too. The sources include events directly leading up to the album release and very obviously anticipating a new era, such as the "funeral" or the announcement of the lead single. Another website talks about the sound direction they're headed with the album. That source merely echoes Lovato's words on what the album will sound like. If that in fact turns out true or not can be debunked upon release but still be included in the final prose as it is part of the timeline. The background section is intended to document events that have lined up to the start of the era and, skimming through these sources again, I am proven right. Just a side note, I'm not a fan of Lovato, nor do I try to promote their album. I regularly contribute to articles of popular music. Lk95 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This album is coming out in 2 months and is a major studio album by a high-profile pop artist. I do not see a reason to take down an article just to re-emerge it in July? Makes no sense. Also there are MANY verifiable articles and sources on this topic, so that argument is not valid. HaysonDage (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough reliable sources on the album to make an article. CountyCountry (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Saying the artist could get dropped by their label is grasping at straws. Not only is it extremely ridiculous but this comes over as bias against them. This is not the first time an article for a highly-anticipated album by an international star has been created. The article will only grow from here and the current sources should be sufficient. Give Your a Break 09:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough reliable resources, and that there is absolutely not a reason to take it down to just reinstate it. Nascar9919 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per comments. They’re are many reliable sources on the article, I don’t see why we need to delete it. PopLizard (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per a more positive case of WP:SNOWBALL and, well, the sources are there. What more can I say? dannymusiceditor oops 05:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other comments. The reliable sources are more than there and the lead single is out, I don't see the point in removing this article when it's going to be remade very soon anyway. Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 11:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's a snow keep ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bite Ninja, Inc.[edit]

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

Seems to be a startup with routine coverage. valereee (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi valereee - quite a bit of coverage on this company, including segments on top of the top news outlets in the country. Is there a way to better cite/structure the article to avoid deletion? Here's a segment from NBC's Today Show earlier this year: https://www.today.com/food/trends/fast-food-drive-thru-workers-work-home-new-technology-rcna22534 Semonative (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know at your convenience. Really appreciate your help! Semonative (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Semonative[reply]
Hi valereee - any update on this? Thanks! Semonative (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Semonative[reply]
Hi, @Semonative. What we like to see for an organization is multiple articles in reliable sources that cover the business itself at length and aren't limited to local or industry media. The NBC show is possibly one. IMO it's more about the idea and the pandemic than the business itself, but it could arguably be one of the three. Which of the sources you've provided would go to that? Also, please disclose your WP:COI, as has been requested on your User talk:Semonative. That is a non-negotiable. valereee (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That NBC item is about the only source I can find. Pages of press releases, not enough about the company in non-PR media land. The undisclosed COI is also worrysome. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article, lacks coverage in non-routine WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to meet WP:GNG, though it's a promising startup. --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:45, 12 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. WP:SNOW close, over-whelming community consensus that elected politicians at national level are notable, per WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qayyum Sajjadi[edit]

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

Lacks notability, searches return little more than lists and a few passing mentions. Zera/talk 19:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I'd highly recommend that someone throw these 3 sources (so far) into the article, or at least the talk page. I would but it's not fun to copy and paste on mobile. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:40, 8 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dixon (investor)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have attracted sufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO. Of the sources listed, few are reliable and independent and none also provide substantial coverage. The Scotsman is about him commenting on Edinburgh, but not about him himself. Forbes isn't a reliable source. I can't find anything better. As I noted on the talk page, the article was created by a reputation management company. SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 8 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. No prejudice against creating a redirect to the Fort Pierce article, since the school is mentioned there, but there wasn't a consensus about that in the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Baptist School (Fort Pierce, Florida)[edit]

Faith Baptist School (Fort Pierce, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a probable segregation academy that closed in 2015. I did the usual searches, including newspapers.com. The info I found was extremely trivial e.g. "the groom graduated from there" or advertisements. The only reference in the article was a link to an athletics site, now dead. I did find one trivial article [3] The article was deprodded with the statement "secondary schools should generally be taken to AfD". I discussed redirection with the deprodder, who disagreed. I would suggest redirection to Fort Pierce, Florida#Education. Jacona (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Conti[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A rather common name, getting many hits in Italian news, but none for this fellow. Zero found in GNews, Gscholar or Jstor, I don't think he's made a notable contribution to the history of music or as a musicologist for example to be featured in them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to send it back to Afc when I reviewed it about a week ago, but couldn't. I posted a question at Afc, re: what to do and it was answered today, but I see it is moot. When I reviewed it, it was clearly non-notable. If there was coverage, the inexperienced editor would have placed it. No effective references. scope_creepTalk 13:14, 12 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! 23:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. B'havin[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NSINGER. Failure to launch. No coverage, no social media, no streaming . scope_creepTalk 15:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does the charted hit not add to notability? I'm unsure if she was the primary act on it or just associated in some way with it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, although I don't know. Music folk will come in an tell us at some point. She could be massively notable, with lots of historical coverage but couldn't see much. See what happens. Its early internet period, still inside it, its not the early 90's black zone where you cant find anything, that decade before the internet that I have real trouble with, so there should some historical coverage. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 8 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 Draftify. is a reasonable AtD and will give Amaekuma time to work on it. Star Mississippi 16:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attih Soul[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Most coverage consists of puff pieces Mooonswimmer 15:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to be honest I don't know where to append my appeal but I'll just put it here and hope it's enough
First of all, I'm supposed to have ten minutes to put the introductory statements of my article together before I get flagged. Right? That's true according to wikipedia rules right? You didn't even allow the time elapse and here I am getting all these red flags. Such overzealous aggressive has an under tone like I'm not welcomed to contribute here on Wikipedia. I have read what Wikipedia is and isn't and that definitely isn't what Wikipedia is.
Secondly, I know Wikipedia isn't a place that frowns at good faith edits. Wikipedia is great today because a wide range of good faith edits are allowed. Let me do my thing. I am still working on the rules and I haven't broken any rules so far
Thirdly, the backbone of Wikipedia is citations. If I was given time, I would have provided citations
I'm going back to working on the article. Bye Amaekuma (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to influence the outcome you would normally start your comment with something like "keep" or "delete". It's clear you don't want this deleted. We could argue about how notable this person is, you can do that by sharing sources that prove that here. But also you could ask for "draftify" which means you get infinite time to work on it before anyone can judge if the subject is notable. That would be the easier path, I suggest. But you could argue to keep if you can share with us three good sources, that is the less easy path, but totally up to you. I recommend you read the document top right entitled "Introduction to deletion process". All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the promptness of my nomination. My intention was not to intimidate you in anyway. You've done some great work on previous articles, and I myself am still new to many things, including AfD. I will consider withdrawing my nomination as a gesture of good faith. Perhaps I'll opt for some maintenance tags.
However, I did conduct a quick preliminary search before the nomination. Most of the articles I came across were obviously sponsored puff pieces. Regarding the sources you've just added:
Attih Soul bags double masters degree in Barcelona (Guardian Nigeria) Sponsored post, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. The article contains a spelling mistake ("artiste") that Attih Soul himself made in a WikiProject AfC Help desk request back in February 2020, so it's possible the article was written by him.
Meet Attih Soul, the Bio Chemistry graduate who rose to a Superstar in Barcelona (Opera News) Generally unreliable source with no editorial oversight, likely sponsored, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources
Attih Soul, Otta Orchestra thrill at RMF Word-for-word copy of the article on Guardian.ng, which is generally a more reliable source.
I think the deletion discussion should revolve around whether or not his participation in the Road to Yalta festival and his composing of the Democracy Day Theme Song of Nigeria make him a notable musician as per WP:MUSIC.
Also, I haven't accused you of breaking any rules or of making bad faith edits. But I'd humbly suggest working on an article in your sandbox or as a Draft before publishing it. You can definitely expand the article after publishing, but I believe there are much better ways to create an article than publishing one that consists of a single sentence and one unreliable source and then working on it. And to be honest, I'm not familiar with the 10 minutes rule.Mooonswimmer 18:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artiste, is not a typo, I think. If I understand the context of what you are saying correctly. CT55555 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that, thanks! I was wondering why the article used both spellings of the term. I checked some articles on BBC News Pidgin to see if it was a West African Pidgin English thing, and that indeed appears to be the case. Quite a few articles use the spellings interchangeably. False conjecture, my bad. Mooonswimmer 18:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some speakers of British English use it too. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using both "artist" and "artiste" in the same article is what I found intriguing. Mooonswimmer 18:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafity Article doesn't meet criteria as it stands, but if someone is keen to improve in the short term, that seems like the fair step to take. CT55555 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a LOT of substantial coverage, but I think there's probably just enough there to warrant an article, possibly more in non-English language sources. I'll withhold my !vote to see what gets added to the article. PianoDan (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Oblige the page creator and give them time to improve this article in Draft space where, hopefully, it will go through AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The artist should be mentioned in the articles detailing his works. While his work may be noteworthy, the artist is not notable enough for a Wikipedia read.Exquisit (talk) 14:03, 12 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) 15:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry O'Donnell[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence that O'Donnell merits inclusion at Wikipedia. Known (slightly) from his appearance on Undercover Boss, the present article concentrates on (and promotes, via a paid editor) his current career as a public speaker, for which he is not at all notable. The article was created by hijacking a redirect to Lawrence O'Donnell; I recommend that the redirect be restored and the article content deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be deleted! I saw the message after and started the (entrepreneur) one. I didn't know it hijacked a redirect. Sorry about that! Angelica ALRC (talk) 15:41, 8 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. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Germany and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Israel, no argument as to why this list meets LISTN have been provided. The notability of the listed people do not make the topic of the list notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Italy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This unsourced article dates to 7 Novemeber 2004. That makes it only 17 years old, which is short by unsourced Philatelycruft article standards, but way longer than at all acceptable for Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not Wikia, and unsourced listing of trivial facts, which the exact pictures on postage stamps are an example of, is not something that Wikipedia should have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: you seem to have an private and unsourced opinion that pictures on postage stamps are "trival facts". You are of course allowed to have and express that opinion. Wikipedia should however seek for better arguments when making decisions like this one. Bw Orland (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty certain they also mentioned "unsourced" too, which is one of the most important factors in these discussions, so that really isn't the greatest summation of their stance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these people are not even from Italy, and never in any way infleunced Italy directly while alive, so this claim is not actually backed up by facts. You are also ignoring the total and complete lack of sourcing. What evidence are you talking about? There are no sources, so there is no evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: you must be very well into italian history if you can deem which people that have and have not infuenced Italy. As Adenauer is on the top of the list, let us use him as an example: he appeared on this stamp to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Coal and Steel Union. Bw Orland (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not even a secondary stamp. An image of a stamp like that is a primary source. All articles need secondary sources, and list articles need secondary sources that provide analysis of the subject as a whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, John. There is nothing in WP guidelines that says that a list needs an "analysis of the subject as a whole". The image of the Adenauer stamp was not intended as a source, but as an example of people that has been influencal to Italy without being italian. I can see that you are making up objections as you go, and there are probably no answers that would be good enough for you. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes there is, actually, both in WP:SIGCOV and in WP:LISTN. You can't claim "available evidence" and then when pressed for it present none. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "evidence"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this meets WP:LISTN. Nomination included canvassing and prodding while opposition was to be expected. Articles without a case for deletion in an AfD should never be prodded. Nominator talks about fixing but the article is not broken. Either way, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has no sources at all. We do not keep articles with no sources, period. No one has offered any sources. Your bald claim it meets the guidelines for lists does not overcome the facth that it really does not. It is a collection of trivia, and as I said there are no sources at all. The one source above which shows what stamp Adenaur appeared on is not a source that treats the lists as a whole, and that is needed to justify list articles. An article that has lasted for over 17 years with no sources at all is clearly broken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep confusing sources with references. The article lacks references and that does not matter. Only the existence of sources matters. Also, Wikipedia has no expiration date. Making up guidelines, then saying period, does not create new guidelines. It's not how WP works. gidonb (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this meets WP:LISTN. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. The people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country. Turgidson (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article still has zero sources. I am not sure on what ground people are arguing to keep an article without sources and with them offering no sources in the keep discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete All of the above keeps are either WP:VAGUEWAVES that "this meets LISTN" (with no evidence whatsoever); or borderline silly claims that "this is an intrinsically noteworthy subject" (when in fact policy is rather goddamn clear there is no such thing and that notability requires verifiable evidence). As for reasons for deletion, first, no evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see a lot if people invoking LISTN, but even that is contingent on sourcing. If none can be provided, it's an invalid rationale. I know nothing of the world of stamps, so I'm holding off on a formal stance, but if no reliable sourcing is found, I'd default to delete. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Turgidson and Johnbod. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As there are no sources present in the article, and none presented in this AFD, that discuss this topic as a group or set, it fails WP:LISTN. The fact that the people listed may be notable, or that there may be verification that they did appear on stamps in Italy do not automatically supersede the requirements of needing reliable sources showing notability of the topic in order to pass WP:LISTN as a stand alone list. Likewise, simply claiming that it meets WP:LISTN without providing any kind of sources that demonstrate that it does is not a valid argument. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no evidence that 'People who have appeared on stamps in Italy' is a notable topic; nor any evidence that these people have actually appeared on postage stamps in Italy. There do seem to be a LOT of these pages per Category:Lists_of_people_on_postage_stamps JeffUK (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:11, 9 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 that this is a non-notable one-time event. Malinaccier (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Wisconsin skydiving mid-air collision[edit]

2013 Wisconsin skydiving mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable general aviation incident. This accident was previously deleted here- [4] ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not notable. Non-fatal light aircraft accident, no notable people involved and was previously deleted under a different name for being non-notable. Mid-air collisions in the US are quite common and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Articles like this are why we have the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't ever put anything on Wikipedia, I believe I'm putting this in the correct area. Please don't delete this page. It was a great resource and answered all my questions. The video from this incident constantly resurfaces on social media, so having this page where all the information on the incident is readily available is quite convenient. If anyone would like to beef it up, it may be good to also include information from the FAA incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.27.221 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You haven't addressed the key reason for the deletion nomination, that this is a non-notable accident and was deleted previously as non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Three sources from the week following means no ongoing coverage and it fails NOTNEWS. The accident report does not support notability. Surely, there is some other website that records all air accidents? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kriyetic Comics[edit]

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

consists of external links only & fails ncorp. Khgk (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lanna Rodrigues[edit]

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

Very early stage career. Checked the first 14 references and they are quite poor. Fails WP:NSINGER. scope_creepTalk 14:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

examples
the translated source says

She began her artistic career singing in bars, shopping malls, participating in several music festivals (winning in some of them) and opening concerts for several MPB artists, in addition to participating in radio and TV programs.

and the article says

Lanna Rodrigues began her career singing in bars, shopping malls, participating in music festivals and opening shows of MPB artists,[4][21][22][23] besides participating in radio and TV programs.

the source:

In 2007 she released the DVD “As Novas Divas Brasileiras” recorded live at the CCSP (Centro Cultural de São Paulo). The following year, she released, through the Paulinos Music Seal, the CD “Marcas do past”, produced by Moisés Camilo and Jefferson Luís. The album included the tracks “Algo Assim” (Mathilda Kóvak and Luís Capucho), “Illusion” and “Nothing Changed”, both in partnership with Claudia Martins; “It's cold without you” (w/ Hugo Sepúlveda); “To forget you” and “It will not change”, partnerships with Aline Martins; “Often in nights” and “Scars”, both with Jefferson Luis; “Instantes” (w/ Helena Elis) and only of his own authorship the compositions “Inicio, meio e fim”, “Não avail”, “No tempo” and “Um Caminho”, in addition to the title track “Marcas do past”, composed in partnership with Claudia Martins. With the album, distributed by Tratore e Imusica, she performed several launch shows in the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.

the article:

In 2007 released the DVD "As novas Divas Brasileiras" recorded live at CCSP (Cultural Center of São Paulo).[3] In the following year, released the CD "Marcas do Passado"[4][23][24][25][26] by the "Selo Paulinos Music", produced by Moisés Camilo and Jefferson Luís.[1] In the CD were included the tracks "Algo assim" (Mathilda Kóvak and Luís Capucho), "Ilusão" and "Nada mudou",[23] both in partnership with Claudia Martins; "Faz frio sem você". (Hugo Sepúlveda);[23] "Pra te esquecer"[23] and "Não vai mudar", partnerships with Aline Martins; "De vez em noites" and "Cicatrizes", both with Jefferson Luis; "Instantes" (Helena Elis) and her own compositions "Inicio, meio e fim", "Não adianta",[23] "No tempo" and "Um caminho", besides the title track "Marcas do passado",[4][24][25][26] composed with Claudia Martins. With the album distributed by Tratore and Imúsica, he did several shows to launch it in the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.[1]

Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Fix[edit]

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

No results on ProQuest or GNews. "John Boruk" "Fantasy Fix" turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Prod contested without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Zero references. Zero online. Zero. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was also unable to find any coverage in reliable sources regarding this program. It appears to have only been regionally aired, and as not even the more specific NBC Sports Philadelphia article mentions it, a Redirect would not be appropriate. Merging, of course, would be out of the question due to the complete lack of sourced material present in the article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 8 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. Star Mississippi 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7th Infantry Regiment (Estonia)[edit]

7th Infantry Regiment (Estonia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:GNG. This military regiment lacks WP:SIGCOV, only major coverage being a potentially unreliable Estonian website. No other WP:SIGCOV exists on subject, following searches. Adam8410 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What information is in here that wouldn't sensibly be found under Estonian Army? Nothing, that's what. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a three-battalion regiment, the equivalent of a brigade. It's not surprising that there's not much online about a pre-war Estonian military unit, but deleting an an article on a unit of this size would seem to be setting rather a poor precedent. It does of course meet WP:MILUNIT #2. I'm sure some tiresome deletionist will as usual gleefully point out that it's only an essay, but there is a good reason it was written and agreed to by those who know about such things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST, passes WP:GNG. Adam8410, did you review the source listed on the corresponding Estonian-language Wiki article? It appears to a reliable source and has a long discussion of the history of the regiment on its 10th anniversary starting from page 1404. The Estonian national archives also appear to contain subject-matter about this regiment (see here), and this archive appears to contain press coverage of the regiment (do CTRL-F for "7. Jalaväerügement"). This article also appears to give at least some coverage of the regiment, and together with the Estonian National Archives history of the regiment and the 10th anniversary coverage gets it over the line for GNG, but even if it doesn't other sources clearly exist that should be consulted in the Estonian archives (e.g., the coverage of the regiment's 20th anniversary) and per WP:NEXIST it is sufficient that sources do actually exist. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above. This stub can be expanded. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Waters[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Not elected, puff page, no significance, no notability as a lawyer, politician or drive through wedding practitioner. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates for office are almost never notable, nothing suggests this would be one of the extremely few exceptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple references over a five year period establish notability. The notability is not solely due to being a candidate; however, over the next few months more election related articles about the subject of this article are likely to come out. If it needs to be further edited to remove puffery that can be done. --Waters.Justin (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your long standing contributions to Wikipedia and willingness to change the wording (unlike others who create candidate articles). However, more election related articles would simply prove the notability of the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida. [[Also, an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Mpen320 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable political candidate; the COI is also an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom., not presently notable per WP guidelines. The article can easily be re-created if he wins election to the seat he is running for, or gains significant coverage in WP:RS-compliant sources (aside from routine campaign coverage). Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fair to say the current sourcing doesn't establish significance. Don't have a problem with COI here, user has done everything right. Nweil (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — and the merely expected and run of the mill level of campaign coverage in the local media, where coverage of elections in the media outlet's local coverage area is merely expected to exist, is not in and of itself sufficient to give a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: if that were how it worked, then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless. Rather, a candidate's sourcing needs to establish one of two other things: either (a) they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides their candidacy per se, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as significantly more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the "even if he loses the election and never accomplishes another notable thing in his life, people will still be looking for information about his campaign ten years from now anyway" test. But this doesn't pass either of those tests at all, and it's instructive that the only "keep" vote so far has come from the subject himself, who is not entitled to put himself into Wikipedia per our WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI rules.
    Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough to earn him permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia today. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination and Bearcat's follow-up.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:22, 10 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. Star Mississippi 16:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Local (magazine)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:WEBSITE. No significant coverage presented, no major awards. Before we start using the Digital Publishing Awards cited, "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." and these awards don't have a WP page and they confer $500 on their awardees which doesn't sing 'major' to me. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, but open to persuasion here's my thinking:
  1. I agree about the award mentioned above. But their website also mentioned being a two time winner of National Magazine Awards which does meet the criteria mentioned above.
  2. Maybe that is enough to establish notability? But also this article plus this add credibility to notability
It's not the strongest keep argument I've ever made, so feel free to change my mind, I'll follow with an open mind. CT55555 (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the page states, it has been nominated for an award that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The sources already listed on the page further lead me to believe it's notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Genuine request for information. Writers in The Local have won awards for their features in The Local, but the magazine itself hasn't. So do the awards confer notability? My thought was no, but I'd be interested... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned by CT55555, two articles won National Magazine Awards in 2022: [5]. Per WP:WEBSITE, a website is notable if "the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." While I think Alexandermcnabb is right to ask whether the notability is inherited (given the explicit guidance in WP:ORG that notability of an organization is not inherited from notable members), it seems that there is support for award-winning content to confer notability. Given that the publication's content is consistently nominated and recognized, I've come to the conclusion that the article meets notability standards required for inclusion. Malinaccier (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

720 Degrees (film)[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp notability under GNG or SNG. 5 minute single-shot film never released except at film festivals. Won one award: (HBO Award at the South Asian International Film Festival in 2010). Of the 5 references, 2 are to IMDB entry, two make a brief mention of it, and the Daily Star ref has a few paragraphs of real coverage. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 8 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LEDA 2791735[edit]

LEDA 2791735 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. It exists (Simbad) but good luck finding any coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 13:44, 8 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. Convincing argument that this violates WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Southeast Asian Games medal table with Olympic & Asian Games sports[edit]

2021 Southeast Asian Games medal table with Olympic & Asian Games sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the speedy tag. The rationale given was "These medal tables aren't officially published by the organizing committee or Southeast Asian Games Federation. This article has been created based on an editor's principle without official criteria from the organizing committee or Southeast Asian Games Federation." -- not really a "speedy" qualification, but it seems to me that there should be some discussion here about deletion. I interpret the contents as possible WP:OR and/or WP:N. I remain unconvinced and should be considered neutral in this discussion--but I encourage the discussion to take place. I may participate in the discussion and take a position later on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:TRIVIA. It's a random intersection of 2 things- the SEA Games, and the Olympics, with no justification for why these two Games have been arbitrarily intersected. 2021 Southeast Asian Games covers the medals in a sensible, logical way, whereas this page is illogical. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Southeast Asian Games have always been known as including sports in favour of the host. Except for Laos 2009 and Myanmar 2013, the hosts always rank 1st on medal tables & are way ahead of 2nd place. Therefore there have been many call on social medial for medal table of only Olympic sports, excluding local sports. In fact, many newspapers have calculated the number of medals in Olympic sports for their countries, for examples in [1] & [2], sport officials in Vietnam mentioned the gold medal won by Vietnam in events that would be featured at the Paris Olympics. That is the proof that these tables are not illogical & only based on the opinion of an editor.NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TRIVIA indeed. I can't imagine anyone in their right minds Googling this, let alone looking through it to find information they need. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "SEA Games 31: Sự thắng thế của các môn Olympic". Người Lao Đông. May 24, 2022.
  2. ^ "Bảng tổng sắp huy chương SEA Games 31 của đoàn Việt Nam". Vietnamnet.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 8 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 2000–01 Bradford City A.F.C. season#Statistics. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hardy (soccer)[edit]

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

I don't believe this person meets GNG. Briefly on the books at Bradford City 20 years ago where he played all of eight minutes in a single League Cup game.

I wasn't sure if I should nominate, due to him being mentioned in The Independent and other notable sources.

Although he was mentioned in articles at the time of his dismissal from the club, I don't think these pieces constitute significant coverage. He is never covered specifically, with each of these articles listing him alongside a teammate. These references also cover one event and he was subject to no sustained coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to change my !vote to Redirect to 2000–01 Bradford City A.F.C. season#Statistics as per GiantSnowman.--MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - One appearance for Bradford City in the League Cup does not make him notable enough to have an article. The circumstances of his departure for the club (along with that of another player) did attract coverage, but this coverage is not really enough to justify an article either. However perhaps a mention of this incident and the two players departure could be moved from here to 2001–02 Bradford City A.F.C. season. Dunarc (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is substantial coverage of the subject that has been unearthed below. While there is some concern that the subject is primarily known for one event, others point out that coverage of this discovery has persisted for years. Consensus appears to be that the subject is notable based on the guidelines at WP:PROF. Malinaccier (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dario del Bufalo[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. The majority of the article is about an antiquity he discovered. Notability is not inherited. It's possible that the artifact could warrant an article (I haven't determined if the refs about it are independent or reprints of the same story. If so, then this should redirect if such article is created). MB 02:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Keep. Seems notable based on sustained coverage about him over years:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/roman-mosaic-long-used-coffee-table-returned-italy-180966968/
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/nov/22/priceless-roman-mosaic-coffee-table-new-york-apartment
https://www.insider.com/nyc-coffee-table-relic-ancient-roman-emperor-caligula-yacht-2021-11
https://www.universitadeimarmorari.it/soci/dario-del-bufalo/?lang=en
He is the author of many books:
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3ADario+del+Bufalo&s=relevanceexprank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=24&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=12&unfiltered=1&ref=sr_adv_b
Academic papers write about him:
https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/2616273
He is mentioned many many times in Google Books Search
BLP1E is really about the decision point between an article about the person or the event. If an event (Discovery of table...) existed, then I'd find this easier to agree with, but there is such an overwhelming amount of sources about him, I ask the nominator to explain how none of them establish notability. CT55555 (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is not a lot of significant coverage about him outside this one event of finding a lost museum piece. As far as his publications, the criterion for authors is at WP:NAUTHOR and requires more that just writing works. MB 01:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about WP:AUTHOR. I was really taking this all together and applying the logic I quote below from WP:BASIC. I'm still not sure of myself on this one, but do still lean keep. I'm open to being persuaded though. CT55555 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong WP:NAUTHOR is, as it says, for "Creative professionals". He's not one of those, as a scholar, archaeologist and academic. WP:PROF applies. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've skimmed through quite a few sources and none of them feature what I'd call significant coverage of the guy. Every single news article I've seen is centered around the artifact and features at most a few lines about him, but even then, only in relation to this one particular artifact. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar impression. Which is why I went with "I think keep" but on the other hand every place I looked (news, scholar, books) had hits. So I was thinking of the guidance at WP:BASIC that 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" and therefore leaned towards keep. CT55555 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the guideline, but I'm arguing that coverage is exclusively trivial. There simply doesn't seem to be enough fodder for a proper encyclopedic article. The nominator's argument seems persuasive to me; if anything, an article should be created for the artifact. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's borderline. I respect your opinion. And I'm still not certain about mine. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Only some of the volumes are self published many are not so the assertion that they all are is a blanket misstatement.Strattonsmith (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was not as has been characterized a one off occurrence leading to a Jack in the box notoriety when he discovered the Caligula parked boat mosaic in New York City, it was an incident which came to pass due to his knowledge and eye for the mosaic and his academic background in the field. It is a pretty epic thing to rediscover a lost national treasure from antquity. You can say coverage died down after a few weeks but I posit that it is a story which will be long remembered. Strattonsmith (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Let me quote Throast Whether mentions in other books actually amount to significant coverage can only be determined by reading them. Well they are on Google books and is it not your onus to read the mentions before passing judgement or just to conveniently pass over them. Second you just refer to the mosaic as some historical artifact as if it were of some small scale rather then the key story it has played out in over the ages.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Well referenced. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. Also fails WP:BLP1E as all of the independent refs revolve around a single event. None of the independent sources are directly about del Bufalo. WP:SIGCOV requires that the sources address the topic "directly and in detail" which these sources do not. The Smithsonian, Guardian, and Insider pieces only briefly mention Dario del Bufalo in passing and do not address his work as either an academic or author in any detail beyond his role in bringing to light a long lost artifact. He is not the primary subject of any of these secondary references (which are all about the Caligula artifact and its location in the apartment of an antiquities dealer where it was used as a coffee table), and while reliable and independent, they do not constitute significant coverage of del Bufalo as they are trivial mentions. The only reference we have of del Bufalo where he is mentioned "directly and in detail" is the Università dei Marmorari (it:Università dei marmorari) bio where he works. As such, that source lacks independence. Additionally, we have zero critical reviews of his work as an author, and there is no evidence that he meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Merely demonstrating that he has written published works is not enough to demonstrate notability under our notability criteria for authors.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Academics and experts on academic subjects (the latter applying here) are only rarely the primary subject of sources. They should be judged by their contribution and in this case the sum total of his contribution to art and archaeology is considerable. That ought to be enough. Zerotalk 07:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:PROF; WP:NAUTHOR is the wrong test. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus that the team is notable. Whether it should be merged and, if so, under what name does not require a 3rd relist since the prior two generated no incremental input. Star Mississippi 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fangio (cycling team)[edit]

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

insufficiently notable ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 00:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into AD Renting (cycling team), for example under the combined name of Fangio-ADR or AD Renting-Fangio. The combined name is less of a priority than the merge. Open to all options. Even AD Renting with Fangio in the history. The dab for AD Renting makes no sense anyway. (A company existed for which we do not have an article. Not sure the company would even be notable.) Examining the other opinions thus far, the problem is NOT NOTABILITY (the focus of all opinions above me) but an incorrect organization of information, for example by WP:SPINOFF or WP:SPINOUT. Hence, there is no intrinsic problem with the arguments made above, only with their conclusion, as additional considerations should have been made. gidonb (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered a separate team per all sources, despite the confusing history, so I think it is technically a separate team. Either way that should be a separate discussion, as the nom is only concerned with notability, despite providing no evidence for their case, so we should close this AfD and potentially discuss this further elsewhere. Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since AfD became a discussion rather than deletion procedure, raising merge preferences is totally legitimate. One team did continue the other. Note also that the writeup for the currently AfDd team is small. What I can add is that keep, NOT delete, is my second preference. gidonb (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:33, 8 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. and no indication any is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination explaining GNG is not met, if indeed that's the case. Star Mississippi 17:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anah SC[edit]

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

Three seemingly arabic only language sources. Non-notable and non-verifiable. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep Non-English language sources do not make them non-credible, therefore this AfD should be closed regardless as the nominator's reasoning is invalid. The world does not revolve around the English language as many people seem to think it does. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, nomination criteria not valid.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination rationale is indeed invalid. We currently have a procedural keep, but there is a delete vote, which is a vague wave. Another argument posits that GNG is met, without details. Hard to build consensus like this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a prime example of AfD going off the rails. This should have been a procedural keep because the nominator clearly misunderstood Wikipedia's rules on sourcing, believing that foreign language sources are sub-par. If the AfD remains open on the strength of GiantSnowman's !vote, then we're asking GiantSnowman to take on the responsibility of the nomination complete with the requirement to do a proper BEFORE (because no one else has apparently done one). For what it's worth, I think done properly this probably would be a delete, because looking at the references (auto-translating the first two) the first is very routine match-listing and the second doesn't appear to mention Anah, and is a long complaint that the local press and government weren't taking much notice of football anyway, which implies proper sources are going to be hard to find. Elemimele (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the AFD rationale is not invalid, as @78.26: falsely claims - "Non-notable and non-verifiable' is valid. The first part is correct, the second part is not. There is no significant coverage so it fails GNG. GiantSnowman 06:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the article, three sources mentioned Anah's participation in official tournaments with other clubs. There is also the Anah page on Goalzz.com that I refer to in the External Links section. I think this is enough to show the notability of the club. SonOfBasra (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:30, 8 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 OJHL season[edit]

2019–20 OJHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under new page patrol. Article about a season in a junior hockey league. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only sourcing is to themselves. Tagged for this since April. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 8 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. Sourcing appears to be sufficient Star Mississippi 17:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Thielen Armand[edit]

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

BLP of a film director doesn't seem to meet WP:NFILMMAKER. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Thielen Armand is one of the most important directors working in Venezuela right now. His work has been been reviewed by top critics in major international media such as The Guardian, Screen International, Sight and Sound Magazine, Rogerebert.com, Little White Lies, ARTE France. His debut feature film La Soledad was the first film about the contemporary crisis in Venezuela and was released in UK cinemas as well as MUBI, Amazon, AppleTV, etc. La Soledad premiered at the Venice Film Festival and went on to win recognition at major festivals such as Cartagena, Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, BAFICI, etc. Cinema Tropical named it the Best Latin American Film of the year 2017. His second feature film La Fortaleza, a Venezuela-France-Netherlands-Colombia co-production, premiered at A-list festivals such as Rotterdam, Cairo, Busan, Guadalajara and was released in cinemas in Venezuela and HBO Europe. His work has also screened at venues such as the London Institute of Contemporary Arts, The Istanbul Biennale, Museum of the Moving Image in New York, and the Margaret Mead Museum in New York City. Filmmaker Mo Scarpelli made a feature documentary about Jorge Thielen Armand's work, that film premiered at the most important documentary festivals Visions du Reel, IDFA Best of Festivals Section, DOC NYC, etc. The documentary gathered quite a bit of attention and was released in cinemas in the UK, Colombia, and the Netherlands.
Some links:
https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/la-fortaleza-review/5146159.article
https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/098300-000-A/jorge-thielen-armand-filme-la-crise-au-venezuela-tracks-arte/
https://movingimage.us/event/la-soledad/
https://www.rogerebert.com/festivals/venice-film-festival-2016-the-bienalle-college
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/17/la-soledad-review-caracas-jorge-thielen-armand
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/20/la-soledad-review-venezuela
https://www.ft.com/content/cfa03b22-8339-11e7-a4ce-15b2513cb3ff
http://lwlies.com/reviews/la-soledad/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/film-review-la-soledad-2djtshq78
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/el-father-plays-himself-1291887
https://variety.com/2020/film/global/grasshopper-mo-scarpelli-el-father-plays-himself-1234840737/
https://www.artforum.com/news/guggenheim-foundation-names-2021-fellows-85443
https://archive.ica.art/whats-on/frames-representation-solitude-la-soledad-qa/index.html
https://www.gettyimages.nl/fotos/jorge-thielen-armand
https://www.cinematropical.com/cinema-tropical/venezuelan-director-jorge-thielen-armand-is-named-guggenheim-fellow
https://remezcla.com/features/film/la-soledad-qa-jorge-thielen-armand-miami-film-festival/
https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/el-father-plays-himself-examines-dynamic-between-actor-father-director-son
https://desistfilm.com/bafici-2017-la-soledad-de-jorge-thielen-armand/
https://observadorlatino.com/opinion/estreno-de-la-fortaleza-una-pelicula-imprescindible-del-nuevo-cine-venezolano/
https://mubi.com/notebook/posts/shelter-and-sanctuary-close-up-on-jorge-thielen-armand-s-la-soledad
https://www.cinematropical.com/new-events/2018-edition-of-the-cinema-tropical-festival Candelex5 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I deprodded this article after finding that the person was notable. I also provided an article of non-trivial coverage to the creator, and that editor added the item. I did not deprod the related production company because I believe the notability is in question. I would cite WP:SIGCOV in the case of this person because he is covered in detail in many sources and no original research is needed to extract the content. The coverage is also more than a trivial mentions. Bruxton (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above comments and recent modifications to the page already show the person is quite notable. 2.45.40.44 (talk) 08:44, 13 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Sark[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. "Participation only" content and the same for the one source, a database website. Article was sent to draft by others and then immediately moved back to mainspace. Editor immediately removed notability tag placed by another NPP'er. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uncontroversial fail of WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a clear failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More and better sources have been added to the page since its nomination. Hatman31 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like 99%+ of the other National Football League players, Sark easily passes GNG. See here, here, here, here, here, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Beanie has improved the article significantly and it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV now. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per BeanieFan, especially since the sources available on newspaper.com from that vintage are likely only a small portion of the sources that actually existed at the time (but would be much harder to locate now). Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NFL players who played in at least one NFL game are almost sure to be notable, also the article has been improved recently. PlaceKickerEnthusiast (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given recent improvements. As stated above, NFL players are almost always notable.--Mvqr (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep while the article was in terrible shape prior to this AFD, significant improvements have been made showing a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 14:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Baggett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBLP, sources appear to be about the company not the individual. Page contains large amount of suspect COI/UPE, created by likely SPA. Coverage largely local and largely passing mentions, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Signal Crayfish (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteI think we need to decline this invitation to lend another platform to Mr Baggett. He would clearly love to be notable, but he simply isn't. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually created this page (7 years ago) prior to promotional editors getting ahold of it. I don't even recall the motivation but a current search finds he doesn't meet guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:35, 9 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilasha Barak[edit]

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

Seems like WP:1E to me. The sources indicate that the page's subject is only notable for one event. She's obviously very talented and dedicated to fighting. However, the coverage suggests that she's five-minute famous and not quite notable yet. Signal Crayfish (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments failed to show that this topic meets LISTN, but instead was about how the individuals listed are notable. The notability of the listed people do not make the topic of the list notable Everyone here should brush up on AADD. Both keeps and deletes used a fair amount of poor arguments that had no weight. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classic cases of WP:DOESNTBELONG and WP:PERNOM, i.e. nonarguments. gidonb (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN and WP:PRESERVE. Israeli postage stamps often carry people and places. This has been recorded in all catalogues of Israeli stamps and international catalogues. All these stamps are included there. Newspaper articles appeared when the stamps were published. gidonb (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rationale makes literally no sense. No catalogues or newspaper articles are currently cited in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is not even the beginning of a valid argument per WP:NEXIST. All you basically say is: Hey, I failed in my WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one source here is an article from 1986, making it 36 years old. It does not undertake to list all people on postage stamps. In fact it is mainly about Kibbutz, and talks at least as much of places. It would be a source (but not enough on its own) to back up an article entitled Trends in people and places on Israeli postage stamps, but that article does not justify covering this as a seperate topic from Postage stamps and postal history of Israel. That source mentions 2 people without naming them, names 2 other people, and in no way seeks to be a comprehensive list. It actually backs the idea that reliable sources cover postage stamps in ways other than complete listings of who was pcitured. So it leads to two conclusions, 1-the exact people pictured is not super important, so we should not have this list, 2-people pictured are not more notable than places, so if we had a list it should not be List of people on the postage stamps of Israel, but the more comprehensive while equally trivial List of what all postage stamps of Israel ever portrayed, which is an indiscriminate listing of everything, which Wikipedia is not meant to be. No one has ever demonstrated why listing people, and not places, is a reliable sourced limiting of the scope, and the one source here shows it is in fact not a limiting of scope that makes sense to those who create reliable sources, so it is arbitrary, and there is nothing that seperates these lists from being indiscrminate, so we should delete them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TenPound, did you look at the references? At the sources? It should be part should be part of a WP:BEFORE or of arguing with your peers. gidonb (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the sources. We still have 0 reliable sources that discuss the topic as a whole. The fact that people will publish articles on some people being portrayed on postage stamps does not show that the sum total of everyone who ever appeared on postage stamps is notable. Plus, as shown above when you actually engage with the sources they mix together mentions of people on stamps and mentions of other things, such as communities, portrayed on stamps. This is not the level of sourcing needed to justify such an article. There is no source here giving a complete list of everyone on Israeli stamps. I do not believe the current sources are enough to meet our actual requirements for the types of sources needed to justify a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep confusing sources with references. The rest of what you say also doesn't hold water. In general, you seem not bothered by policies and guidelines. For example, your arrival here was after canvassing by the nominator. Still, you have added your opinion here and everywhere else as if our community rules do not apply to you. gidonb (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are the one who does not care about policy. We do not keep articles that do not have references that are reliable sources that back up the whole. Your comment above was very rude and very uncalled for. I arrived here because I review all deletion articles and join in on those I feel are worth commenting on. The claim I came here because of canvassing is false and malicious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were canvassed in the intro. Anyone can see this. This is a fact, not an opinion. Next, per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article The bold is in the source, so we will not disregard. Finally, given the vast amount of sources, continuing to claim that there are no sources, is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. gidonb (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
they are not realible sources that treat the topic as a whole and show that a comprehenivie list of this topic is viewed as a notable subject. Just because someone mentions one or two people who were on Israli postage stamps does not mean that the subject itself is notable as a group needing a list. Especially when in at least one case the source in question discusses places on Israeli postage stamps and not just people on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what did you learn from this one particular reference (i.e. source in the article), you chose to focus on, about Israeli stamps? gidonb (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I learned that they sometimes commemorate people connected with Kibutz, or Kibutz themselves, or places that were started as Kibutz, even though well under 5% of Israel's population lives in a Kibutz. It is no way backs up the notability of the list topic, or justifies us having this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, neutrally asking an editor who's dealt with related topics is not canvassing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This list has 11 fictional people on it. Generally we do not mix fictional and real people in such a way. I also still think if we are going to keep these lists because of some value the only way that would at all work to organize them is by year of stamp being issued.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Orland. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not Stanley Gibbons. This is better as a Tumblr blog, Pictures of people pictured on stamps. Where does this lead? List of people pictured in posters? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like all of the other stamp-related AFDs of late, there is no evidence that this is a subject that passes WP:LISTN. The fact that the individuals listed are, themselves, notable does not automatically give a standalone list any kind of notability. There needs to actually be sources that discuss the topic as a group or set, and none have been shown to exist. Rorshacma (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Much of the keep !votes rely on Orland's argument. However, their argument is not based in policy and does not show how this article passes LISTN. Therefore, the deletes have it. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Germany. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is another unsourced article that dates to 8 March 2003. It is a trivial list. It is unclear on scope. Among other issues, no one has argued why it makes sense to list something that changes over time alphabetically. For example, Adolf Hitler is on this list. No government after 1945 would have portrayed Hitler. If this is an actual notable topic, we would list who was pictured each year, not list it alphabetically. So the way this list is ordered makes it inherently trivial, even if there is some justification for a list by year, but even that would need adequate sources to overcome the trivialness of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. In the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands and the sources added in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands it is clearly indicated that stamp designs and stamp policies play a significant role in many nations. That kind of policies can't have been invented from nothing on the Faroes in the 70's. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no sources on this article. None at all. We do not keep articles without sources. Your assumption that the issues with one country apply to other countries are false. I still think that was a wrong decision and still think this is a trivial subject, and your attempt to keep articles with zero sources is extremely disruptive of Wikipedia. Each country appraches postage stamps in its own way, and we need sources on each and every article to justify it. There are no such sources on this article. Absolutely none. If stamp designs play a significant role in Germany, than you should be able to find reliable sources that talk about this role. What are the sources? Verifiability means we built artlces on sources. Sources must be there to have an article, not weak assertions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. And yes, the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country. Turgidson (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the Roman Tradition of repeting important information. There are still no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of sources has not changed. I have to admit this is the first time I have seen people vote keep with no attempt to produce sources. This sort of list belongs on Wikia not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orland. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orland. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Orland's argument is completely spurious, being essentially WP:BUTITEXISTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 days after the deletion discussion was opened this article still has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's no longer the case: I added a journal reference, with title "Heroes of the Nation? The Celebration of Scientists on the Postage Stamps of Great Britain, France and West Germany". I meant to add it to the corresponding French page, too, but alas, I see that that page has been deleted before I could do it. A huge pity. Turgidson (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is a pity that there is a “stamp name list/article” hunt and some of these articles are being deleted before people have time to see them. Perhaps it would be better to take this to a policy discussion instead of trying to delete all of these articles individually. This process does not seem appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments to keep the article have not been backed up by further sources or improvements to the article. Per some of the other stamp AfDs, I would like to see evidence of this first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not Stanley Gibbons. This is better as a Tumblr blog, Pictures of people pictured on stamps. Where does this lead? List of people pictured in posters? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The list fails WP:LISTN, as there are no sources that actually discuss the topic as a group or set. Most of the Keep votes above are "per Orland", but Orland's original argument is not based on policy. Having a list of notable people does not automatically mean that the list passes WP:LISTN, and this list does not. Rorshacma (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While I closed other debates on lists of people on postage stamp articles as "delete" (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of China and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Sweden), this list has a few sources and consensus is generally on the side of keeping the article. Malinaccier (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Republic of China[edit]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I added these sources to the article (the first two sources show that Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists is met):
    1. 唐富藏 (1992). 重修臺灣省通志．卷四：經濟志交通篇（2） [Revision of Taiwan Provincial Gazetteer. Volume 4: Economics and Transportation (2)] (in Chinese). Nantou: Taiwan Historica. ISBN 9789570017519. Retrieved 2022-05-31 – via Google Books.

      On the pages that I reviewed, the book lists these people who appear on commemorative stamps:

      1. 林故主席紀念郵票
      2. 孫總理國葬紀念郵票 (Sun Yat-sen)
      3. 蔣主席就職紀念郵票 (Chiang Kai-shek)
      4. 吳稚暉誕生百年紀念郵票 (Wu Zhihui)
      5. 羅斯福夫人紀念郵票 (Eleanor Roosevelt)
      There are other pages containing other people that I have not reviewed.
    2. "今日郵政" [Today Postal]. 今日郵政月刊社. 2011. Retrieved 2022-05-31 – via Google Books.

      The magazine notes: "瞭解我中華郵政改名的來龍去脈,便知為何連續 3 次總統就職紀念郵票小圖 4 全張卻有 3 種樣的道理。再如為李登輝總統發行的第九任總統就職紀念郵票小全張(圖 4 ) ,也有幾項特別之處。首先,李登輝從民國 77 年 1 月 13 日,在蔣經國總統逝世後,以副總統身分 ..."

      From Google Translate: "Knowing the ins and outs of China Post's name change, you can understand why there are three reasons for the three consecutive Presidential Inauguration Commemorative Stamps. Another example is the commemorative stamp sheet (Figure 4) issued for President Lee Teng-hui of the ninth presidential inauguration, which also has several special features. First of all, Lee Teng-hui from the Republic of China on January 13, 1977, after the death of President Chiang Ching-kuo, as vice president..."

    3. 郭素娥 (2014). 郵政大事記 第11集（民國96年至100年） [Postal Memorabilia. Edition 11 (ROC calendar year 96–100)] (in Chinese). Taipei: 中華民國政府出版品. p. 56. ISBN 9789860408850. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

      The book notes: "98年4月13日適逢蔣故總統經國先生百歲冥誕,為表感念與緬懷,中華郵政股份有限公司特以經國先生之肖像及走訪民間親民愛民之圖照為主題,於本日發行「蔣故總統經國先生百年誕辰紀念郵票」1組4枚及小全張1張,"

      From Google Translate: "April 13, 1998 coincides with the centenary birthday of the late President Chiang Kai-shek, as a token of gratitude and memory, Chunghwa Post Co., Ltd. With the theme of Mr. Jingguo's portrait and the pictures of visiting the people, close to the people and loving the people, the company will issue "Mr. Chiang Kai-shek's Centennial Birth Commemorative Stamps" today in a set of 4 pieces and a souvenir sheet, ..."

    4. Crook, Steven (2010). Taiwan: The Bradt Travel Guide. Bucks: Bradt Travel Guides. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-84162-330-6. Retrieved 2022-05-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes about George L. Mackay: "on the 100th anniversary of his death from throat cancer, Taiwan's post office issued a stamp commemorating Mackay's life."

    5. Vynckier, Henk (2008). "Museifying Formosa: George Mackay's From Far Formosa". In Hayot, Eric; Saussy, Haun; Yao, Steven G. (eds.). Sinographies: Writing China. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. p. 249. ISBN 978-0-8166-4724-8. Retrieved 2022-05-31 – via Google Books.

      The book note: "Another, less boisterous event took place on June 1 when the Directorate General of Posts of the Republic of China issued a special set of stamps to commemorate the centennial of Mackay's death. The commemorative set had been introduced"

    6. Carwardine, Richard (2011-05-07). "The Surprising Global Reach of Lincoln". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-07-11. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

      The article notes: "Pairing Lincoln and Sun Yat-sen as "great democratic prophets, protecting human rights and upholding justice," the Taiwan government in 1959 issued a stamp of the two standing shoulder-to-shoulder."

    7. Peatman, Jared (2013). The Long Shadow of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0-8093-3310-3. Retrieved 2022-05-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Taiwan produced a stamp with the dual images of Sun Yat-sen and Lincoln "of the people, by the people, for the people" written in English under Lincoln and the Chinese equivalent under Sun Yat-sen (see fig. 5.5)."

    Cunard (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the incidental mention of one stamp in a book is not enough to show that a list on a topic is notable. The sources above may or may not be worth adding to Postage stamps and postage history of Taiwan or whatever exactly we name the article, but they are not enough to justify a comprehensive list that includes everything. We cannot build lists alone on reliable source entries that show indicidual cases belong. To justify a list we need reliable sources that treat the subject as a whole, not just reliable sources for indivdual entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. No one gets notability from beeing on a stamp; but stamps indicate the role of a person in their society. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it a reasonable encyclopedic thing do look for. It and similar lists are not random lists, but list of the 50 to 300 (usually) the country wants to commenorates especialy and make visible at least nationally and often internationally. Allp philately sources keep track of them., so there's no problem about sourcing. This is not a list of "everything" The total total number takign all the lists together might be about 20 000-100,000 over the past century. . I don't considerthat indicriminate. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a bad guess! This is stampdata.com's list of all persons on stamps ever; the database not being complete, I expect the final number will come in around 25k or so. Stan (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    20 000-100,000 over the past century Yeah, that would be prime WP:INDISCRIMINATE material. Even our lists of aviation accidents (of which there probably haven't nearly been as many as that) have strict inclusion criteria. Being listed on an all-inclusive philately database is not a sign of notability for Wikipedia, in the same way being listed in an all-inclusive sports database isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep people who appear on postage stamps appears to be a notable topic, per the sources shared by Cunard. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there are plenty of things here that would not have articles in a paper encyclopedia. NemesisAT (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NemesisAT and Cunard. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further evidence that Cunard's improvements show the article should be kept and further improved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not Stanley Gibbons. This is better as a Tumblr blog, Pictures of people pictured on stamps. Where does this lead? List of people pictured in posters? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cunard's sources show that the topic is notable, and I think that is all that is needed to justify a keep vote. CT55555 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources presented by Cunard seem to be at best rather generic coverage of stamps and of the postal history of Taiwan. Some cover specific instances of someone getting depicted on a stamp, but none covers the wider topic of "people on the postage stamps of Taiwan". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a bad idea. The proper place to discuss articles suitability (or lack thereof) always has been AfD. On top of that, there are always individual cases which require more discussion. Finding an appropriate general discussion without falling into pitfalls of WP:NOTBURO or WP:CREEP is difficult. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the presented sources above actually discuss the overall topic of "People on the postage stamps of the Republic of China". At best, they each discuss a small handful of very specific individuals appearances on stamps. But verification that some of these listed people did, in fact, appear on stamps in Taiwan does not actually confer notability to the entire topic, as they still do not discuss the topic as a group or set, which is the requirement for the notability of a standalone list, per WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says (my bolding):

    Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.

    Here are two additional sources that show that "people on the postage stamps of the Republic of China" has been discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
    1. Huang, Yu-Chin (2007). National identity and ideology in the design of postage stamps of China and Taiwan 1949-1979 (PhD). University of London. pp. 229–250. Archived from the original on 2022-06-15. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via E-Theses Online Service.

      This is a PhD thesis from Yu-Chin Huang, whose institution was the University of London. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship says (my bolding):

      Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties.

      This thesis has been cited in these five reliable sources:
      1. Sharma, Manu (2021-12-01). "Postage stamps as sites of public history in South Asia: an intervention". India Review. 20 (5). Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/14736489.2021.1993708.
      2. Zarrow, Peter (2012). After Empire: The Conceptual Transformation of the Chinese State, 1885–1924. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p. 340. ISBN 978-0-8047-7868-8. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Google Books.
      3. Clunas, Craig (2017-05-16). "The Politics of Inscription in Modern Chinese Art". Art History. 41 (1). Wiley. doi:10.1111/1467-8365.12301.
      4. Fuller, Harcourt (2014). Building the Ghanaian Nation-State: Kwame Nkrumah’s Symbolic Nationalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 196. doi:10.1057/9781137448583. ISBN 978-1-349-49652-5. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Google Books.
      5. Wang, Helen (2008). Chairman Mao Badges: Symbols and Slogans of the Cultural Revolution. London: British Museum. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-86159-169-5. ISSN 1747-3640. Retrieved 2022-06-15 – via Google Books.
      The abstract notes (my bolding): "Postage stamps are exclusively made by a country that is recognized by other members of the international community. Governments have always utilized these tiny images as national and international propaganda. By 1949, the Chinese Communist Party effectively controlled the Chinese Mainland and established the People's Republic of China (PRC), while the Nationalist Party fled to Taiwan to resume its Republic of China (ROC). The PRC and the ROC simultaneously asserted their sole legitimate succession to the Chinese regime, and both countries' postal authorities utilized postage stamps to build their own Chinese national identity and engage in a long-term propaganda war. ... By comparing five sets of stamp themes, including people, anniversaries, international relations, sport and the overseas Chinese, Chapter Five analyzes political, historical and ethnic identity in postage stamp designs of the 'two Chinas'." The comparison of people is on pages 229–250 of the thesis.

      The thesis notes on page 229: "Firstly let us begin with how the PRC and the ROC postal authorities decided who should stay on postage stamps. From 1949 to 1979, there are fifty-seven different persons in total that can be specifically identified on the postage stamps of the ROC on Taiwan. These people can be roughly classified into five topics, which are 'political figures', 'revolutionary martyrs', 'cultural figures', 'Chinese historical icons' and 'ethical and mythical figures'. Table. 5.1".

      Table 5.1 is labeled "Individuals Depicted on the Postage Stamps of China and Taiwan, 1949-79". Here is information from the Taiwan column of Table 5.1:

      1. Political figures: Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai Shek, Madame Chiang, Yu Youren, Wu Zhihui, Lin Sen, Chen Cheng; Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower.
      2. Revolutionary martyrs: Lu Haodong, Qiu Jin, Huang Xing, Qiu Fengjia, Zhang Zizhong, Gao Zhihang, Sa Shijun, Xie Junyuan, Yan Haiwen, and Dai Anlan.
      3. Cultural figures: Xu Guangqi, Hua Tuo, Cai Yuanpei, Qu Yuan, Li Bai, Du Fu, Bai Juyi, Zhu Xi, Zhang Tiaoyou, Sir Rowland Hill, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr.
      4. Ethical and mythical figures: Confucius, Mencius, Yue Fei, Wen Tianxiang, Xuan Zang, Budai Heshang, Lao Zi, Shide, Pomo Xianren, 24 Paragons of Filial Piety, Folk Tale Icons, Beijing Opera figures
      5. Chinese historical icons: Zheng Chenggong, Tang Taizong, Song Taizu, Yuan Taizu, Ming Taizu, Di Yao, Di Shun, Xiayu Wang, Shangtan Wang, Zhouwen Wang, Zhouwu Wang, Zhou Gong, Lin Zexu
      The paragons of filial piety are discussed in this 12 September 1971 articleInternet Archive in The New York Times.
    2. Deans, Phil (June 2005). "Isolation, identity and Taiwanese stamps as vehicles for regime legitimation". East Asia. 22. doi:10.1007/s12140-005-0007-5. ISSN 1598-2408.

      The article notes: "The first issue of definitives following the KMT's retreat to Taiwan are made in June 1950 and consist of a portrait Cheng Cheng-kung. ... Cheng became an important element in Chiang Kai-shek's attempts to build his legitimacy and Chiang clearly used Cheng as a model. The next set of definitives, issued on Chiang's birthday in 1953, provides a portrait of Chiang in a similar style to those of Cheng. This is a conservative set of definitives, consisting of a simple portrait of the head of state."

      The article later notes: "This trend in definitives culminates in 1972 with the 'Chinese Culture Heroes' series featuring luminaries from the Chinese past such as Confucius ($8) and King Wen ($5.50)." The full list is hereInternet Archive on Chunghwa Post's website.

      The article later notes: "Chiang also quickly captured the symbols of Japanese power and authority from the colonial period, and this was clearly seen in the 1953 commemorative marking the third anniversary of Chiang's resumption of office. In these stamps the Presidential Mansion is cIearly displayed along with Chiang's portrait ... Chiang appears on 29 different issues of stamps (and his wife and her paintings occur on four issues). He makes only one appearance after the death of his son and successor Chiang Ching-kuo in 1987, and that is 'indirect'--the 1999 issue commemorating the new currency which still carries Chiang's portrait, albeit alongside more overtly Taiwanese images. Images of politicians almost completely disappear from postage stamps after the death of Chiang Kai-shek, part of a process of moving away from personality cults instigated by Chiang's successor, Chiang Ching-kuo. The exceptions are an issue in January 1989 to commemorate the first anniversary of the death of Chiang Ching-kuo (his only appearance on a stamp), and the presidential elections commemoratives issued every four years, which portray the newly elected president and vice president."

    Saving additional sources I found that can be used to verify information in the article:

    Extended content
    https://book.kongfz.com/278515/4362721333/

    The page notes: "台湾纪222 王云五纪念邮票". This refers to Wang Yun-wu.


    https://udn.com/news/story/7270/6140055

    The article notes: "今年適逢馬偕博士來台150週年，中華郵政公司為感念其對台灣的奉獻，9日將發行紀念郵票。"

    From Google Translate: "This year marks the 150th anniversary of Dr. Ma Kai's visit to Taiwan. Chunghwa Post will issue commemorative stamps on the 9th to commemorate his dedication to Taiwan."

    https://www.cna.com.tw/news/ahel/202203090195.aspx

    The article notes: "發行「馬偕來台150週年紀念郵票小全張」".

    From Google Translate: "issued the "Ma Kai's 150th Anniversary Commemorative Stamp Booklet" with the theme of Ma Kai's portrait"

    https://ct.org.tw/html/news/3-3.php?cat=10&article=1389662

    https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/基督教論壇報

    The article notes from Google Translate: "The design of "Ma Kai came to Taiwan 150th Anniversary Commemorative Stamp" and "Mackay Commemorative Stamp Issue: The Grace of All Things Working Together".

    https://www.voachinese.com/a/teresa-teng-stamps-20150415/2719627.html

    The article notes: "今年是歌星邓丽君逝世20周年。台湾中华邮政总局15日（星期三）正式发行歌星邓丽君邮票。这使得邓丽君成为中华邮政百年史上第一位正式邮票肖像的艺人。"

    From Google Translate: "This year marks the 20th anniversary of the death of singer Teresa Teng. On the 15th (Wednesday), Taiwan's Chunghwa Post Office officially issued stamps for singer Teresa Teng. This makes Teresa Teng the first artist to have an official stamp portrait in the 100-year history of Chunghwa Post."

    https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20210705inv005/

    The article notes: "Chunghwa Post announced last week that it will issue stamps on the anniversary of the death of former President Lee Teng-hui on July 30. A total of 2.4 million stamps will be issued in four themes. ... This is Chunghwa Post's second commemorative stamp with Lee Teng-hui as the protagonist after the first democratically elected presidential inauguration stamp in 1996; it is also the second commemorative stamp issued by the former head of state after the 150th birthday of the founding father in 2015."

    https://books.google.com/books?id=fZqFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA67

    The book notes: "輯三海島上的國王為紀念戰役,鄭成功復台三百年,以台南延平郡王祠的鄭成功塑像為圖案的紀念郵票。△為紀念戰役,鄭成功復台三百年的紀念郵戳。 小方框裡的大台南 11日 29日慶祝台灣博物館建館一百年,再以鄭成功像作為郵票圖案。 1979 年2 月第一次發行的, ..."

    From Google Translate: "A commemorative stamp with the pattern of the statue of Zheng Chenggong in the King's Temple in Yanping County, Tainan, in order to commemorate the battle of the king on Jisanhai Island and Zheng Chenggong's 300th anniversary of the restoration of Taiwan. △ In order to commemorate the battle, the commemorative postmark of Zheng Chenggong's 300th anniversary of the restoration of Taiwan. Tainan in the small box celebrates the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Taiwan Museum on the 11th and 29th, and then uses the portrait of Zheng Chenggong as the stamp pattern. First released in February 1979, ..."

    https://books.google.com/books?id=dW0oAQAAIAAJ

    The book notes: "反制台的历史见证民国成立后的第一套纪念邮票,是“光复纪念”邮票,印有孙中山先生的肖像。中日甲午战争失败后,在台南领导对日抗战解放区的第一套纪念邮票,是“抗战军的刘永福,曾发行了一种台湾邮票。因邮票以溪人纪念”邮票。 1938 年 9 月,晋察冀边区流虎啸为图案,又被集邮界称为“独虎图”发行这套邮票,专供八路军战士寄家信邮票。用,所以,没有印邮票面值。图案 1895 年 7 月 31 日,刘永福采纳安是八路军战士持枪跑步前进。"

    From Google Translate: "The history of Counter-Counter Taiwan has witnessed the first set of commemorative stamps after the founding of the Republic of China, which is the "Recovery Commemorative" stamp, which is printed with the portrait of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. After the defeat of the Sino-Japanese War of the Sino-Japanese War, the first set of commemorative stamps in the liberated area of Tainan who led the war against Japan was "Liu Yongfu of the Anti-Japanese Army, who once issued a Taiwan stamp. Because the stamps are commemorated with Xiren" stamps. In September 1938, the roaring tiger in the Shanxi-Chahar-Hebei border area was the pattern, which was also called the "Lone Tiger Picture" by the philatelic circles. This set of stamps was issued for the Eighth Route Army soldiers to send home letters. With, therefore, no stamp denomination printed. Pattern On July 31, 1895, Liu Yongfu adopted An is a soldier of the Eighth Route Army running forward with a gun."

    https://books.google.com/books?id=h5JMetpLndcC&q=%22紀念郵票%22

    The book notes: "嚴前總統家淦先生百年誕辰紀念郵票,為全民所敬愛,不幸於中華民國八十二年十二月二十四日逝世,享年九十歲民國郵票「故嚴前總統家淦先生百年冥誕紀念活動」,特印製「盤前總統家淦先生百年誕辰紀念郵票」一枚,預定於九十三年十一月五日 ..."

    From Google Translate: "The Centennial Birth Commemorative Stamp of Mr. Jia Gan, the former President of Yan, was loved and loved by the whole people. Unfortunately, he passed away on December 24, 1982 at the age of 90. Commemorative event", a special printing of "Centenary Birth Commemorative Stamps of Mr. Jia Gan, President of Panqian", is scheduled to be held on November 5, 1993..."

    https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2020/05/05/2003735854

    The article notes: "Chunghwa designs inauguration stamps of Tsai and VP Lai"

    https://hongkongfp.com/2016/04/22/pixel-style-commemorative-stamps-for-inauguration-of-new-taiwan-president-attract-praise/

    The article notes: "A set of commemorative stamps for the inauguration of the new Taiwanese president and her deputy have attracted praise in the island-nation. The stamps feature line drawing and pixelated versions of incoming president Tsai Ing-wen and vice-president-elect Chen Chien-jen. They will be issued on May 20, the date of their inauguration. Three million sets will go on sale."

    https://international.thenewslens.com/article/135104

    The article discusses Tsai's inaugural stamps.

    https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/07/04/2003760280

    The article notes: "Chunghwa Post on Wednesday revealed five new series of stamps, including a set to commemorate the first anniversary of the death of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). ... Lee is to be commemorated through a set of four stamps representing some of his many contributions to the democratization and modernization of Taiwan, it said."

    https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/659145

    The article notes: "Taiwan Post issued a set of four stamps entitled "The Inauguration of the 12th President and Vice President of the Republic of China Commemorative Issue, " today. The limited edition stamps were issued on the day of the inauguration of President-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Vice President-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) to mark the special occasion, the post office said."

    Cunard (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of television and radio stations in Naga, Camarines Sur[edit]

List of television and radio stations in Naga, Camarines Sur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTLIST Goodvibes500 (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Content in this article consists almost exclusively of links to various related Wikipedia pages. As such, the article serves as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. The few entries that are not linked can be removed, or WP:REDLINKS can be added if the topics are notable, which encourages article creation. North America1000 13:24, 8 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. Star Mississippi 18:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pact for Sicily[edit]

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

Party almost totally unknown, mentioned in some sources only as a party founded by Nicolò Nicolosi. From the page and from the sources, no relevance is revealed either at a regional or national level. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Pact of Sicily was a short-lived political party, but played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Sicilian regionalist parties. It was established by Nicolosi during his tenure as member of the Chamber of Deputies, thus the party was represented not only in Sicily's Regional Assembly, but also in the Italian Parliament: as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Sicilian regionalist parties": can you prove a similar claim? It does not appear that this party has ever been officially represented in any assembly. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. It is only mentioned once in a footnote in a publication about Sicilian politics. Yakme (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion following Checco's improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Further comment. I hope this article (the fact that its leader was a member of the Chamber of Deputies should be enough to ensure its notability) will be kept, but, otherwise, instead of deleting it and losing its history, what about merging through redirect to New Sicily? --Checco (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus among non-socks is that this person is not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snazzy the Optimist[edit]

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

The entity fails the general notability guideline. The sources used for the entity are directorys such as MusicBrainz and FilmFreeway. Nigerian Tribune would help to establish notability BUT just it can't. The Billboard article says nothing about Snazzy the Optimist, as it wasn't even talking about it in the first place. Lambo Xtra and the Pulse Nigeria article are both paid posts. Others are content farms. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 14:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Nigeria, and South Africa. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 14:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom, most sources aren't just what's used to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausibly Notable and MusicBrainz used for the entry is only showcasing and supporting the words "Musical artist" as it is in the article, beside MusicBrainz is the 5th source. The references of this article it's clearly talking about the subject and it's clearly plausibly notable, according to the nominator stating some of the sources are paid posts, is not true. No disrespect but i would highly recommend the nominator to systematically review it again, thank you so much. Gelchi (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article should be kept because it meets WP:SINGER, WP:COMPOSER and WP:NALBUMS making it plausibly notable, so article should be kept. He was answering Snazzy before, as a performer he has opened and performed with Grammy and Juno award winning Canadian Italian artist Michael Bubble, because he plays the guitar. This Subject is clearly notable and should be kept.Gelchi (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep because the sources I see do grant. Jon Sixtus (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article passes GNG. Oppose deletion because there is evidence of notability, most of the sources are all reliable and the article is well sourced, and the sources including the external links should be considered to pass. I disagree with the nominator with paid posts because nothing is paid there as this artist has been working since 2015, i strongly disagree with the nominator. Keep article John Patrick Harris (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Gelchi and Jon Sixtus are socks of Snazzymike. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snazzymike. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with nom, keep article. This entity passes the Wikipedia notability for music, the artist is notable, the article is well cited and most of the sources used in this article are reliable. Nigerian Tribune is a reliable source for Nigerian musicians, and is Radio Times not a reliable source? 5th best magazine in the UK according to google. Music in Africa is a great reliable source for African musicians and have been used by so many African artists like Dambisa, Cina Soul, Terry Apala and others. Lambo Xtra is also used as a source in this article. The Billboard article is clearly talking about him, the article here says he is better known as Snazzy the Optimist or Snazzy and Michael Buble is a Canadian artist where the entity is based so there is evidence of notability and clear verification that this article’s subject is notable enough to remain here. The directorys the nom is talking about that is used in this article as a source such as MusicBrainz is what shows he is a musical artist, this article is also sourced by a Nigerian newspaper talking about the topic of how he was recognized by Jacob Zuma former president of south africa which was published in 2017. And i think there are so many sources about this artist, Nominating this article for deletion was a big mistake by the nom because the article is qualified to be here and it’s well sourced. I strongly disagree with the nominator, unique name also because he isn’t contesting the name with anyone. This article is related to Former South African President, Jacob Zuma and with my research he also makes Afrobeat which is one of the most popular African music genre in the world and his single charted in the Nigerian iTunes music chart and there is a profile of him in almost all the music magazines, tours, festivals, live music, concerts platforms that have Wikipedia articles also such as Resident Advisor, JamBase, Songkick and many more. This artist have profile in all the leading music database such as AllMusic, Discogs, MusicBrainz, Bandcamp and many more which is used as an external Links in this article but some artistes has used them as sources such as Rajery, Diblo Dibala and others. Oppose deletion and keep article, thank you so much. LynRuch (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two in-depth, independent, high-quality sources about Mr. Snazzy would assist your comment. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigerian Tribune (Link) is a reliable source, Billboard, (Link) Radio Times (Link) and others, i also found sources talking about him which i added to the article. I believe this article can make it here and there will be so much improvement on it as time goes on than deleting it. Checking everything you would see that this artist has been pushing. Please keep article as there will be so much improvement on it as time goes on, thank you so much @Malcolmxl5 LynRuch (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LynRuch, I saw your message on my TP and decided to reply here (as I have limited time here). Nigerian Tribune is a reliable source — very reliable, but it was based on what someone said, so, it might as well be counted as primary. On Billboard, the word "Snazzy" was only mentioned in the title and this means that the article was not talking about you, or the guy who paid you to make an article about him on Wikipedia. Radio Times sources is a directory for Christ sake! What’s the content therein? An IMDb link to a Selina music video? That's on you to figure out.
The guy is pushing hard, I must commend him for that, but in this case, it is too soon. Can you point out the composer criteria he meets? cuz I can’t see any. I want to linger on this no more. Whatever the case, I’m not the one to decided IF it will be or not as I am no a system operator. Best, Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 08:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re seeing, you didn’t even go through the sources before making your decision, i think you need to read this and check the credits of the songs. He has written hits for Nigerian artists, read this i think it’s time the world starts recognizing songwriters/composers too, now you’re bringing in what is not needed here, read what you wrote precisely. Can you show proves that i was paid and do you have any evidence? I think providing it here would be great. Was it me that created the article? What are you talking about for God’s sake? I’m only voting and commenting because i know you didn’t review it very well and you didn’t pass your judgement correctly because this artist passes Wikipedias notability for musicians. The article is well sourced and it’s clearly talking about the subject. The artist is plausible notable and there will be improvement of it as time goes on than deleting it. Please could you take a look at it again and stop trying to say what is not needed in this discussion. God bless you and please do have a blessed day Reading Beans. LynRuch (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Billboard "article" is about Michael Buble and only has a paragraph in total, Snazzy is an aside. The rest of the "sources" are about as useless as that. They prove he exists, but nothing that helps us show notability for wiki standards. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While I enjoy the enthusiasm by LynRuch and the other accounts that have been blocked for socking to vote keep on this article i will disagree with them. Tribune Online as they stated maybe considered an WP:RS if only it is published by an Editor or Staff Writer due to high volume of sponsored post. The second source which i almost got fooled, is Billboard (magazine) makes mention of the word "snazzy" which means "stylish" and not Snazzy the Optimist or any song he wrote or featured in. If you check carefully you will not see another mention of "Snazzy" in that article. Some of the sources are just blogs, i can go on and on but round it off with, you can almost get fooled by the sources to think he passes notability guidelines. As earlier said by User:Reading Beans it is too soon so don't push it. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings Jamiebuba, from your own perspective you think deleting this article would be as sweet as you think or keeping it for improvement? i searched this artist, the contents on his Google panel as a musician worth having a Wikipedia page. this article is in good shape, understandable when reading and have most of the reliable sources that most Nigerian artistes page is sourced with. Plausibly notable and he clearly passes WP:SINGER, WP:COMPOSER if you have gone through the sources. I think some of the articles about him are not all showing up on google because i could see short mentions about him, maybe because he was recording under the Snazzy moniker before or. Most of the sources in this article are verifiable and the article isn’t in promotional tone, i support keeping this article for improvement than deleting it and with the look of things i think potentiality should be considered too, How about keeping this article and see how it improves. Thank you so much and please do enjoy your day Jamie. LynRuch (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to work on it, you can request for it to be Draftified and agree that you will submit it through Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you think it is ready to be kept in mainspace. For now, it is not a viable option to be accepted into mainspace if not we'd have so many junks there. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be hastily deleted, this is getting silly. The fellow is hardly notable and this is turning into WP:SNOW Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The article is a stub and is definitely going to be improved in no time, additional sources would be added soon, it is only a "stub" page at the moment and other editors can improve it. This is a musician who has caught the notice of a president and have had his single charted. The article is purely non promotional and catching the attention of a president is a big pull, keep as a potential article that would be improved. TalkTalkTwins (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article hasn't been improved, that's another issue, despite the strong opinions, nothing notable has been added. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is improving now and i know with time there will be much more improvement. LynRuch (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have noticed the trend of stale accounts coming in to comment keep, either the article creator is canvassing for votes or socking but either ways it can't be far from that. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which only helps to prove it is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are absolutely wrong Jamiebuba, the article creator and the socks accounts has been identified by a checkuser and their votes were struck. I don’t believe what you said that the article creator is canvassing for votes, you mean he or she leaving real life issues and be canvassing for votes? Not possible!! God bless you and please do enjoy your time. LynRuch (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much more notable than some of the artistes articles i have read, everything was written with good citations and as some of the voters here has said keep it for improvement i aggree with them, according to WP:COMPOSER and Wiki:Criteria for musicians which states a songwriter, musician or ensemble maybe notable if the meet at least one of the 12 listed criterias.

This musician met number one WP:COMPOSER and number two of WP:MUSICBIO, Being recognized by a president was a big event that also meets to stay in wikipedia. some musicians are also notable in their own, some musicians do not need to work with Beyonce before they can be called notable or have article on wikipedia. The nominator should understand that not all articles on Wikipedia is meant for deletion, some maybe stubs and can be improved with time. Excalatory Vocian EV 🦋💞☑️ 08:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like further comments from editors who are NOT sock puppets and who do not have a potential conflict of interest with the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Taking another look at this (which I assumed had been closed), still no sources. The only hit I find is in Pulse Nigeria, that's it. Still a strong delete due to lack of reliable sources and the extensive socking as above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t delete Passes Wikipedia’s General notability for musicians, the nominator should be interested in improving some articles not nominating them, that makes a good editor. I think he or she should know that there are some important subjects that worths staying on Wikipedia. This article is currently a stub like the other opposers of this deletion said, it’s a stub at the moment and will definitely be improved. Keep as a potential article that will be improved. LynRuch (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LynRuch, did you read the article before citing it? I mean the 13th reference on the page THIS. It does not relate to it the entity in question. Best, RB Talk to the Beans? 06:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Reading Beans, the citation is related to the entity’s sister and what she does, had to cite it for readers to understand and had to add the citation because it’s clearly talking about the mention of the entity’s sister in the article. You could also help by contributing to the page’s improvement. Blessings and please do enjoy yourself, LynRuch (talk) 07:12, 10 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 09:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mount Street Bridge[edit]

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

Red X I withdraw my nomination This tiny stub of the battle is already pretty well described in the Easter Rising main article and adds nothing further of significance. Whatever is missing, with its citations, could well be merged into the main article. ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so lets see how far this can be improved since the three sentence stub. ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sufficient prose has now been added to this article. ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The conflict was the event when both the British Army and the Irish rebels lost most forces during the Easter Uprising; it has encyclopedic signficance and meets WP:GNG. I would have to argue that the content can be further expanded with details unnecessary for the main uprsing article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect while the battle is notable there really isn't enough detail to justify a standalone page when it is covered completely and in context on Easter Rising. Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been expanded since its nomination so it would not be only a content fork from the Easter Uprising article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The battle is the subject of an entire book and often makes up an entire chapter in other histories of the Easter Rising (e.g., this one). One need not be a friend of Irish nationalism (and I am not one) to see that this battle was clearly more significant that a simple skirmish and that there is plentiful material available to expand it. Moreover the article Easter Rising is already 60kb of "readable prose" and thus already too long per WP:TOOLONG to merge this into. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FOARP. Mccapra (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Have we lost our collective minds? This shouldn't even be a question. Are we really arguing WP:NOEFFORT about a page on a vicious conflict in Dublin where over 26 British soldiers were killed and some 134 wounded in what is recognised as a key battle in the 1916 rising? It's sourced to death, literally. It's a thing, literally. It's notable, demonstrably - to the point where I don't even need to break sweat to present sources, you just Google the damn thing. It's extensively, lovingly, memorially and brilliantly documented. WP:BEFORE, much? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a significant moment in the history of Irish independence. It needs expansion, not merge / redirect - Alison talk 17:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well known battle and was the worst in terms of fatalities in the Easter Rising. Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect for preference to Easter_Rising#Tuesday_and_Wednesday, but I suspect I am in a minority. This appears to be an engagement on the Wednesday, which is not mentioned in that article. If kept, work is needed to ensure that this article is properly integrated with the main Easter Rising one, with this one linked as a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of historical significance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:22, 13 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Woods (politician)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in various political party primaries. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for office and losing. But this makes no other claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of unsuccessful candidacies, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (such as raw tables of election results). And while there is one actual article about him in a real media outlet listed as an "external link" instead of being used as a footnote, one media hit isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better referencing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Alabama, and Nevada. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't looked too much into this one, but there are a bunch of sources on newspapers.com I haven't been able to sift through; however, I have to note, this biopsy is extensive. Curbon7 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete passing mentions of deleted candidates are not enough to show that they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perennial candidate for the highest offices. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Half the article does not have a source and not notable.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: perennial candidates, even for high office, are not notable in and of themselves. I am curious, though, about the biopsy cited by Curbon, and also the Newsweek source regarding facial reconstruction/skin transplants. If that can be further corroborated, I'm leaning keep. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and passing mentions in campaign reporting and primary sourcing do not amount to a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This man has significance because he was a severely, severely disfigured candidate (surely there’s a picture available), not just because he was a repeat candidate. His willingness to stand for office and appear on television was noteworthy for the time. 2601:C4:C000:1440:7D0F:9DD3:34CF:F4A2 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Meets WP:GNG due to his historical significance as a repeat candidate with a challenging medical condition. I would assume this article could be considerably improved and expanded upon with additional references but those that are there are adequate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] seem like enough coverage --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep but possibly rename or merge. There's no argument to delete the content, and the conversation as to where and under what name can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 18:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CoDominium[edit]

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

This has been tagged as in need of more citations since 2009, and PRIMARY/INUNIVERSE since 2014. The article is divided into a listing of the books in the series and then a plot summary. It has nothing on reception/significance of the series. My BEFORE yielded little. There are quite a few passing mentions, but sadly, snippet view due to copyright restrictions prevented me from following on all, but I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV (although it's possible copyright snippetting is cutting off something useful :( ). A few works like [11] or [12] seem to provide a short plot summary. This seem to have some analysis of a few books in the series (I think those). The series probably does warrant som mention somewhere, probably in Jerry Pournelle (where it is not discussed except as 'see also'!), but I am afraid what we have here merits WP:TNT. Perhaps we could save the table (list of works), which could be merged to Jerry_Pournelle#Bibliography, but unless someone can add a reception/significance section, I am afraid this cannot be kept as a stand-alone article. Ping User:ReaderofthePack, User:Daranios, User:TompaDompa - do prove me wrong if you can find something to rescue this. PS. We also have an article on a subseries, War World (series), which is in about the same bad shape and at minimum, a merge is likely needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh - it actually looks like the War World books are generally mentioned in the main article list-wise, so any merging would likely be prose centric. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've found enough to where this would pass, but haven't gone through the whole list of books just yet. The bigger thing to look at will be which of the novels are independently notable, which will take some time because of the amount of books and the fact that the majority of sources will be either not online or hidden behind paywalls. I also need to look into the subseries, but I have a feeling that will likely need to be merged. This still needs a lot of work but notability has been secured. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReaderofthePack Thanks. Just a question: you've added some sources suggesting notability for individual books (reviews) but I am still not seeing anything about the series/universe? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviews mention the overall universe/series, so I'd count that as notability for the series as a whole. Plus for something this expansive (one main series, one sub/spinoff series) it would make sense to have a separate page just for this so it doesn't bog down the main author's page, especially as there are multiple authors that worked on them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur there are mentions, but WP:SIGCOV is an issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a custom Google search thing awhile back to check for websites that are listed as reliable sources for book reviews. https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=000940472126197254432:ojqph5ir04q Dream Focus 03:34, 11 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. A discussion regarding merging the list with List of radio stations in Iloilo can take place in any of their talk pages. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 09:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of television and radio stations in Iloilo City[edit]

List of television and radio stations in Iloilo City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTLIST. Goodvibes500 (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Content in this article consists almost exclusively of links to various related Wikipedia pages. As such, the article serves as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. The few entries that are not linked can be removed, or WP:REDLINKS can be added if the topics are notable, which encourages article creation. North America1000 13:21, 8 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) 09:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu[edit]

List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTLIST. Goodvibes500 (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Content in this article consists almost exclusively of links to various related Wikipedia pages. As such, the article serves as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. The few entries that are not linked can be removed, or WP:REDLINKS can be added if the topics are notable, which encourages article creation. North America1000 13:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational list, more useful than a category since it contains more information for people to sort through easier. Dream Focus 15:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:28, 11 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 06:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kressy Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who fails WP:NACTOR with only one film credit so far. Does not meet WP:GNG either due to lack of independent coverage. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:26, 8 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! 03:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pulin Bayan Chakma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hope to see a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Otten (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable presentation trainer. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, event and programme listings. No secondary sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. UPE. scope_creepTalk 05:22, 8 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 06:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Benramdane[edit]

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

Very few importance appearances in top leagues and article generally fails WP:GNG. Player is currently playing in the sixth tier of French football as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since NFOOTY no longer exists, it does not meet GNG and should be deleted.Samanthany (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First, this article should be kept since it was created before WP:NFOOTY 'stopped existing', and its not like he made 1-3 appearances (he made 10 appearances for a fully pro team - see his Soccerway profile). Secondly, he has at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 reliable source articles mainly about him. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those sources provided above do not appear to be RS SIGCOV. There's an interview and several WP:ROUTINE notices of transfers. Also Wikipedia notability policies do not have a grandfather clause, stuff created back when the rules were different are not immune from having the rules applied to them now. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack af WP:SIGCOV. [13] and [14] are interviews with no significant input from the author so it is not independent of the subject. [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19] are a minor transfer stories or trivial mentions and not SIGCOV. Note that there no grandfather clause on the now depricated WP:NFOOTY and it was depricated as it was an extremely poor indicator of whether footballers had the significant coverage to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Sourcing provided above is routine. GiantSnowman 13:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed that routine match reports and Q&A interviews do not count towards GNG. Why do editors still bring up these kinds of sources when they clearly do not meet our guidelines and regularly fail at AfD? JoelleJay (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snap Circuits[edit]

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

I am not sure if this article can ever demonstrate notability. I tried searching for sources and only came up with list sources that are trivial mentions of the article. The official website does make mentions of awards, but I cannot find any awards listed, nor can I find information that would suggest that the product is notable. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 04:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember using this when I was younger and seeing it in schools, but I do not see any nontrivial coverage. This feels like a case of a topic that should be notable but there is nothing I could find that proves that this article is notable, which means that the topic is possibly not notable. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a thing, quite a clever thing. It has extensive coverage in educational discussions and books (try the wee Find sources links helpfully provided above). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some sources already, it really is notable. I also have something for the nominator![20].--Milowent • hasspoken 20:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added another source. It's been pretty constantly reviewed and mentioned in "best toy" lists for a few years by major outlets. Skynxnex (talk) 20:41, 13 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! 03:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Hall[edit]

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

Fails notability. No significant secondary source coverage. WP:SPORTCRIT — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, this discussion is basically 50/50 on "does" or "doesn't" meet GNG. It can't be both. We need more than mere assertions to break this logjam or it will close as "No consensus". Specifics would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or draftify. The articles on The Football Sack appear to written by interns without oversight; WP:SPS apply, and because this is a WP:BLP, and because the authors are not WP:SME, the articles do not count towards notability. No other possible WP:SIGCOV has been found, and so deletion is the best option, although draftification is an option as they may become notable in the future. A redirect is not suitable, as there are many other non-notable Jordon Hall's mentioned on Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since there's no automatic assumption of notability, I'm looking at the sources, which are thin. The one longer piece doesn't really have much biographical info besides his joining the team. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking indepth coverage of him as a person, thus fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Nutley, New Jersey[edit]

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

Another list of non-notable mayors of a small town. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE as almost all of these people have zero notability and the exception "In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness." is also not met as the list is not largely made of notable people. Rusf10 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and New Jersey. Rusf10 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a community of this size is not going to make the mayor default notable. There is no justification for a sperate article on the mayors. We can create a section on the mayor and the stucture of government at Nutley, New Jersey (far too many articles we have do not even say if the government is mayor-council, city manager, commission or some other form) and mention any mayors who are of note to the history of the place in that article. There is no justification for a seperate free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is clear that this list of mayors of a run-of-the-mill town in New Jersey fails to meet WP:GNG. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 22:18, 8 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! 03:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Safuu[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:NCORP. The sources in the article all fail to meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT:

In addition to all of the above sources failing to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, I'm not able to find sources on the internet that do. As such, I believe that this article should be deleted for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline of NCORP. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and Australia. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom. Please also note that Draft:Safuu was draftified one minute before the draft creator copied and pasted the draft article's content into the mainspace. There doesn't appear to be any attribution cleanup required, but there might be some other post-AFD cleanup that's necessary. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not noteworthy. Lead seems promotional: at the time of its introduction, set the record for the highest annual percentage yield in the decentralized finance space, with an APY of 383,025.80% 0xDeadbeef (T C) 22:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: insufficient discussion, relisting for at least a week to attract more policy based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the sourcing is generally quite poor. Mostly primary sources or poorly written blogs, as highlighted above. A Google search doesn't turn up anything significant. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also searching some databases primarily finds the identical PR piece, "Safuu - Launches Crypto's Highest Paying DeFi Yield of 382,945% APY", and nothing approaching any sort of notability at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Almen[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or SNG. The only source is a database web site. Tagged for this since April with no change. North8000 (talk) 02:16, 8 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 10:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Against Violence and Extremism[edit]

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

No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Two-day in event in 2014 with coverage largely limited to that period. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iran. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator - ok, let's not waste any more time on this. While the original event seems to have been a non-event, there seems to be significant meta discussion around the actors and the purpose of the initative. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree with the nominator that coverage was limited to 2014. You need only search for the event name in google news, and then adjust the date range to 2015-2022 to see plenty coverage since 2014. Some examples:
  1. https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/300620/Rouhani-urges-OIC-to-iron-out-divisions-through-dialogue
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/11/opinion/mohammad-javad-zarif-saudi-arabias-reckless-extremism.html CT55555 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that a handful of trivial mentions from 2016 (all of which only make a cursory mention of the 2013 proposal/2014 event) really overturns the absence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It is an Iranian political talking point that the regime uses to promote its goodwill and which, yes, occasionally crops up as a trivial mention, but nothing more. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 8 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! 10:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Systems Inc.[edit]

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

Defunct company, all sources appear to be Primary or routine business. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with some caution, since the generic nature of the company's name makes it very hard to do a robust WP:BEFORE. But the references are very weak. Its parent Wind River Systems is notable, though the article needs substantial work. FalconK (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a number of independent WP:RS discussing the company alongside its founder, giving enough insight into some of the up and downs of the company to further flesh out the article (there are many more sources out there, but they are somewhat difficult to find due to the "generic" name of the company). Among the sources easily spotted is an entry of the company in a printed encyclopedia and a Forbes article. While the company was never one of the really big players, it has been a developer of the pSOS (and later FlexOS) operating system(s), which both are notable on their own. pSOS was one of the most successful embedded OSes of their time, with lots of embedded devices ranging from cars to consumer equipment (like washing machines and digital cameras) to aircrafts running it. FlexOS was more focused on industrial controls, point of sale terminals and such - and it had, as a successor to Concurrent DOS, a long history going back to another industry veteran Digital Research (and Novell). There should also be many sources discussing Integrated Systems at some better detail at around the times it went public and when it was eventually bought by Wind River Systems, another significant player. ISI was founded by Narendra Gupta, a notable former Indian-American entrepreneur. While the Integrated Systems Inc. article was a redirect until recently, I applaud that someone started to write an article about it, because I considered this topic to be a missing "puzzle piece" in our network of links for long, naturally connecting many related articles, topics and loose ends. It is good to have a place where the various bits of company history can be collected and presented in congruent style, it helps to put the development of the products in (historical) context, and we are not doing our readers a service if we have to distribute the snippets over various other articles because the article about the company itself is missing. Also, with the added sources, I think, the topic has been demonstrated to be above the WP:GNG line and also meeting WP:NCORP. More sources can be added, but would need time. The article is only start class right now, but has potential for more. Give it time to grow, Rome wasn't built in a day. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that WindRiver was better known for RTOS, but ISI were the first to push RTOS for embedded/networked devices which today we just take for granted. WindRiver has the advantage of existing more recently and having its product chosen for notable NASA missions. From my career experience, ISI was a major player, and widely used. My particular experience was with the MATRIXx product, the first of its kind CAD tool for complex engineered systems. MathWorks' Simulink now dominates but it wasn't always this way. Actually I would like to see an article about MATRIXx, there's one for Simulink, but given the issues with the notability and deletion that I seem to have started I'm not willing to do that. Bottom line, the article's subject is a company that drove significant innovation in two different technologies that have become mainstream and invisible -- a workable definition of success. Unfortunately, given the era in which it operated and its very generic name, it is challenging to find good sources. However that doesn't mean we can't start somewhere, and keep a decent nucleus that others can discover and build upon. How else can we record and explain technological history for posterity?Peter.corke (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wired[21] in 1996 says they were the market leader. Notability doesn't fade. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The Wired coverage together with the Forbes coverage (both independent RS's, though the Forbes article verges on an interview it doesn't cross the line into being one) just about gets this over the line for WP:NCORP. FOARP (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I agree that the Forbes reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Although the author of the article is not visible on the linked webpage, I have viewed an archive of the magazine article and the author was David Churbuck who was a senior editor at that time. I agree that the Forbes reference contains sufficient "Independent Content" above the information provided in interview. I have also found a small article in Fortune magazine dated 26th December 1994 in the "Companies To Watch" section and it refers to an analysis performed by Michael Schmidt, a technology analyst at Mabon Securities available here (if you can access). Another reference which also verges on an interview but also contains sufficient "Independent Content" is an article entitled "Invisible Computers" by Srikumar S. Rao published on 9th May 1995 (ISSN: 0015-2064) available here (if you can access). Topic meets NCORP. HighKing++ 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keep arguments mostly some form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While delete arguments make the case that NLIST has not been met. The stronger set of arguments are for deleting the page. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asians by net worth[edit]

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

We are not a Forbes mirror; nor a stats database. Except for Wiki mirrors, or plain mirrors of the Forbes list, or similar lists (with however vastly differing figures and names, which suggests it isn't actually plausible to have an accurate article on this), there is nothing about this topic I can find to provide more than statistical trivia. Thus fails WP:NOT and WP:NLIST. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? There are dozens of similiar lists on Wikipedia. --Afus199620 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please list them so I can nominate them too. WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep more content which violates core policies like WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are already here for years, and the decision to keep was made a long time ago. They won't be deleted. --Afus199620 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OLDARTICLE is not a valid reason to keep stuff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There should first be a decision on all lists first before there is one on one.--Afus199620 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Afus199620 didn't list the lists claimed to exist. Moreover, "They won't be deleted" is not an argument, and their existence for years isn't an argument for keeping them, either. Athel cb (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First a policy decision should be made about all lists in Category:Lists of people by wealth, before any single list is to be deleted.--Afus199620 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is not a primary source and there is no copyright violation.--Afus199620 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMIRROR is still policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid navigational and information list article. So is List of countries by number of billionaires, List of Africans by net worth, List of Europeans by net worth, List of Latin Americans by net worth, or the dozens of articles for listing the wealthiest person in every nation. If the information about their wealth can be listed in the articles for them, no reason not to list it here as well. Dream Focus 23:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is a shit argument, right? All these pages should probably also be deleted per WP:NOT. I don't se what "navigation" or "information" this provides to readers. Stats trivia is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this type of article is not what we do here. If there are in fact other articles that are similar, then they should be deleted as well. Topics included in the article that have their own page, are just that: notable enough for their own page. Sourcing them to a standalone page, and displaying their own highly speculative and always changing net worth is not encyclopedic in nature and not supported by Wikipedia policy. Megtetg34 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm marginally fine with this. This is not a copyvio since Forbes collects the info from other sources - this is not their original content, as opposed to 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. It is WP:SYNTH but people who are interested in lists and info will appreciate. Lock down the inclusion criteria on the talk page (what is meant by Asian, for example) and leave a hidden comment for editors and it will be OK. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep - This type of regional listings have nothing to condradict wikipedia standards. There have been enough articles with some entries by country who have successfully passed the articles for deletion process. Abbasulu (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This type of regional listings have nothing to condradict wikipedia standards You don't provide any argument why these articles meet Wikipedia standards, nor do you even appear to be aware that, in fact, there are plenty of reasons why this does not meet said standards. How unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The key point is that this list is openly and unashamedly taken from Forbes alone. It is a mirror of Forbes, nothing more. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to summarise human knowledge derived from multiple sources; its this consensus-finding that makes an encyclopaedia valuable. We're contributing nothing by mirroring a single website. The list could be seen as a directory of articles about ludicrously rich notable individuals, but as such it's wrongly structured. Since Wikipedian notability is not temporary, annual rankings are irrelevant, and the list should be timeless. As it stands, we're going to have to add a new top 30 in 2023, and again in 2024, and many individuals will be the same in multiple successive years, which is unnecessary list-bloat, and within a decade the list is destined to become too big to use. So if the list must be kept, it should be a simple one-entry-per-person list covering all eternity. Elemimele (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multible sources will be extremely messy and not comparable. The list can be easily updated annually like all these lists. There should first be a policy decision about all the lists that are structured in exactly the same way, before any single list is to be deleted.--Afus199620 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
here should first be a policy decision about all the lists that are structured in exactly the same way, before any single list is to be deleted: I disagree. The proper venue to decide the validity of articles for inclusion in Wikipedia always has been AfD. In cases like this, the usual way (a method I have already implemented a few times) is that a few articles which appear to fail inclusion standards are nominated at AfD; and usually the reminder are then dealt with at a later date. Arguing that there should be a policy decision about specifically "lists of people by wealth" seems like process for the sake of process; and is also unlikely to reach any useful outcome as the community usually dislikes making policy or other guidelines for one-off, specific cases (that is, more often than not, unnecessary WP:CREEP). Better implement the policies and guidelines which we already have. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per reasons stated by Elemimele, and lacks multiple reliable sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find much encyclopaedic value in such lists, but, although I too strongly believe in WP:OSE, I'd Strongly Suggest a General Discussion about having such lists in Wikipedia. It'd be unjust to limit the discussion to simply a random one of those. Do we take it here? -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You should open an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists if you are to discuss this further. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the many similar, extant lists, I'd suggest to wait on this specific case and not decide either way. I'm taking this up in stand-alone lists. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malinaccier (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum[edit]

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The organisation appears not notable. All current sources are from the organisation. I did a full WP:BEFORE and found only brief passing mentioned in google news, only their own material in google scholar and nothing of note in google books. In addition to that, the article is in bad shape, most of it uncited and heavily edited by an account with a name matching the organization CT55555 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled a bit with the templates, but have notified WikiProject Organizations, WikiProject Mining, and the original author. I decided not to ping the User CIM web editor to avoid putting them in what seems like a likely a conflict of interest scenario. CT55555 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bot has since notified that user anyway. The closer of this AfD will take any COI into account. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable - and similar organisations in other countries have healthy viable articles - original editor long gone. The problem with 'parallel universes' in sourcing, means a simple sitting on google as the only source of knowledge - is a serious problem. It is likely there is a canadian editor with hands on sufficient resources - maybe even something like 'Trove' that we have in Australia. It is definitely notable, just if you look in the wrong corners it will appear that way, it is the ingenuity of the editor who knows where to look, that it can be proved to be adequately notable. JarrahTree 03:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the two most common ways I spend my time on Wikipedia are writing about mining in Canada and arguing to keep articles at AfD. The two biggest articles I've created are both about mining in Canada. This is the exact area I tend to write about, and I don't think I've ever before now proposed to delete an article.
I find notable subjects easy to prove notable at AfD by providing sources that prove notability. The absence of that, does suggest a lack of notability. CT55555 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The age and transitions alone are sufficient for identifying and showing a developing organisation over time - viz...https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1065581 https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1144423 and that in itself if carefully outlined is very sufficient... JarrahTree 09:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't significant coverage, as per WP:SIGCOV. CT55555 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isnt - but an indicator that a historical context included could actually be part of an improved article... multiple names and name changes are not sufficient in any way... JarrahTree 12:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
coverage in media in direct reference to the organisation is perhaps a furphy. The spread and extent of the involvement in the wider mining community in Canada is found clearly in the category of the subject Category:Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum the awards and the individuals and companies that are found in the category involved with the organisation are not in a narrow scope or non notable area... the awards alone are specifically related to wideness of the activity of the organisation within Canada. The challenge is to understand the notability is probably verified in effect by tangential sources/material, not direct. JarrahTree 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not much in GScholar, JStor has more promising results. They publish the "Journal of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum" and I get a few scattered hits describing activities in Zimbabwe. Otherwise, just listed as a place that an individual works. It's been around 100 yrs, I'd expect further sources to turn up. Some coverage about an appointment to the top position [22], they also give out an award related to mining, the newspaper has a few mentions of it. Should at least have enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I understand User:CT55555 concern about the lack of reliable sources and believe the article needs a fair bit of clean up work, this source seems to hint that it is a well established society with 124 years of history and a substantial membership. Authority control also has an entry for it on the Library of Congress. More importantly, the Institute also seems to set the Mineral resource classification standard for Canada, judging by this article and similar sources and that alone would make the organisation quite important in a mining country like Canada, similar to the JORC Code in Australia, as it would be quoted as a bench mark index in a very large number of official reports on the Toronto Stock Exchange. For an example, see Kinross Gold's 2021 Annual report (page 58). A very specialist organisation for sure with little coverage in mainstream media but notable nevertheless. Calistemon (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps the style is not encyclopaedic, but it is not the reason to delete the article. The institute with 100+ years history and not-for-profit orientation. --Bigneeerman (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not the style that concerns me (that could be fixed) it's the lack of independent sourcing, the lack of notability. 100+ years of not being notable shouldn't get anyone into Wikipedia, I think. "Not for profit" that is technically true, but they are a trade association, the profits are made elsewhere, they are not a charity. CT55555 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mining in Canada#Trade organizations - The lack of sourcing is the deal breaker. We can't depend on info in primary sources to ascertain notability; it has to be based on coverage of the organization. In this case, I can't find anything significant, per notability guidelines. The Speciation source cited above appears to be a commercial trade organization, so this is likely a self-submitted directory entry. FWIW, Speciation itself doesn't appear notable. The Northern Ontario announcement of the group's new president is from a thinly repurposed press release, and has almost nothing about the organization. I tried to approach this by looking up the magazine's impact, and found this [[23]], suggesting not much of an impact. For an organization that's supposedly been around for so long, the lack of coverage is a red flag. Fails WP:GNG. But as an alternative to deletion, the single source about the President can be used to support a merge of minimal selected info to Mining in Canada#Trade organizations. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no policy-based rationale for deletion. This is a classic example of why WP:N is not a basis for deletion, since it is about what merits a separate article, not what merits deletion. Merging and redirecting to Mining in Canada, as proposed above, seems like a very cromulent solution. But nobody needs AFD for that. -- Visviva (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manaia Siania-Unutoa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 8 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. There's no consensus to delete the article, but not enough consensus to keep it either. Nonetheless, editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sahibinden.com[edit]

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

Since this is a company, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. None of the reference meet NCORPs criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep I found 2014 this piece by Haber7 (which I'd consider reliable) criticizing the company for making some in-app changes and saying that some companies will boycott the website because of it. A similar source about criticism to the company for an ad, though I wouldn't consider Haberler to be reliable per limited consensus on a trwiki RfC. This source from two months ago by Yeni Şafak is about an association criticizing the website for unreasonably high prices, however it has quite a bit of quotes from the association president. This source from Takvim is about "public outcry" due to another ad on the website. It also claims that online selling companies artificially increase the prices. This comment is a bit of generalization of all companies, not limited to Sahibinden. The rest of the sources I found weren't close to meeting WP:ORGIND. I'm not exactly sure if this means clear notability though, as you could make a case for some of the sources to be not significant enough. ~StyyxTalk? 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in this book.--Kadı Message 17:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [24] [25], 3 books! Kadı Message 17:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Kadı Message 17:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 8 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. ✗plicit 01:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jungo Connectivity[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE Yaakovaryeh (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are a number of analyst reports available which provide in-depth analysis of the topic company, those reports meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 15:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - HighKing - can you provide us with some links to those reports? Otherwise it is pretty difficult to assess what you are looking at. FOARP (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there are numerous. Here are two links to abstracts of the reports. This from QY Research from October 2021 and this from LP Information. HighKing++ 15:02, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_8&oldid=1093591339"