Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 11 May 13 >

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 13:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana News Online[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable website. It doesn't have any references to reliable sources but only links to content published by them or their owner. Search on the web doesn't show up anything relevant either. Nominating at AfD as it's already been CSD'd (G11) and declined in draft space as Draft:GHANA News ONLINE, as well as CSD'd (A7) in article space as GHANA News ONLINE before. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. References are primary and/or unreliable, and I couldn't find anything that shows it passes WP:GNG. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nowhere near meeting the WP:WEB, the site don't even have a dedicated domain and works on a sundomain. Cirton (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 16:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Television[edit]

Taiwan Television (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)

More than a dozen paragraphs and not a single source. —ÐW-🇺🇦(T·C) 22:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Tsai, Michael Kuan (Spring 1970). "Some effects of American television programs on children in Formosa". Journal of Broadcasting. 14 (2). doi:10.1080/08838157009363590. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Taylor & Francis.

      The article notes: "Taiwan Television Company (TTV) put its first program on the air on October 10, 1962. In three years the number of TV sets in 1 use in Formosa had increased 50 times. There were approximately 150,000 TV sets in use at the time of this study. TTV increased programming hours from 35 hours a week in 1962-63 to 50 hours a week in 1964. In the 50-hour weekly program schedule, TTV presented 18½ hours of American programs. These were programs such as Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Combat, Andy Williams Show, Lassie, Branded, Bat Masterson, Citizen Soldier, and Cartoons. The latter is 3 a program title for a variety of American cartoons. Since TTV was the only station on the air, these American programs had a good chance of being watched. The possible effects of these foreign television programs has concerned some Formosans. ... In the first three years, TTV's programs only reached the people in the northern part of Taiwan. Since October 10, 1965, TTV has extended service by way of three satellite transmitters to the middle and the southern parts of Taiwan."

    2. Hsu, Chien-Jung (2014). The Construction of National Identity in Taiwan's Media, 1896-2012. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 78–79, 82–83. ISBN 978-90-04-22770-5. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The first commercial television station was the Taiwan Television Enterprise Company (Taishi 台視, TTV),71 owned and operated by the Taiwan Provincial Government. TTV was set up in 1960 by the Fourth Committee of Central Headquarters of the Chinese Nationalist Party,72 and was launched by Chiang Kai-shek's wife, Soong Mayling, on the October 10, 1962." Footnote 72 said, "TTV was operated by the Taiwan Provincial Government until 1998 and then the central government took over until 2007 when it was privatized." The book further notes: "The proportion of native Taiwanese journalists was close to half at TTV. The reason was probably that the TTV was run by Taiwan Province and it had to report more local news. Thus, the TTV had to recruit native Taiwanese-speaking staff." The book further notes: "On June 21, 1970, Legislator Hsieh Chien-hua 謝建華 condemned puppet shows as pandering to low-class taste. After these criticisms, TTV reduced the broadcast hours of both the puppet show and Taiwanese opera from July 5, 1970. However, this measure did not satisfy the ruling elite. Finally, TTV axed "Yunzhoudairuxia Shiyenwen" on November 27, 1970."

    3. Lo, Ven-Hwei; Cheng, Jei-Cheng; Lee, Chin-Chuan (1994). "Television news is government news in Taiwan patterns of television news sources selection and presentation". Asian Journal of Communication. 4 (1). Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Taylor & Francis.

      The article notes: "Fulfilling this showcase mission, Taiwan Television Company (TTV) was established in 1962. TTV is owned by the Provincial Government (49 per cent), four Japanese television companies (20 per cent) and private commercial interests. TTV made so much profits that others aspired to take some shares of it."

    4. Shan, Shelley (2021-05-13). "TTV News touts abilities as it vies for Channel 52". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.

      The article notes: "TTV, which has been privatized for 13 years, serves as a positive example of the government’s media reform, which bans political parties, the government and the military from investing in or managing broadcast media, Chou said in a statement."

    5. Yiu, Cody (2004-06-01). "TTV starts digital broadcast system. New Era: The first terrestrial television station to broadcast digital signals will offer three programming options, tripling content choices for its home viewers". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.

      The article notes: "Taiwan Television Enterprise (TTV) is entering the digital era today by being the first terrestrial television station to broadcast programs through digital signals."

    6. Damm, Jens (2016). "Politics and the media". In Schubert, Gunter (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Taiwan. Oxon: Routledge. p. 191. ISBN 978-1-138-78187-0. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "For a long time, Taiwanese TV stations were limited to four major commercial television services with strong links to the KMT and the military: Taiwan Television Enterprise, China Television Company, Chinese Television System and Formosa Television Corporation (Chai 2000).

    7. Rawnsley, Gary D.; Rawnsley, Ming-Yeh T. (2018) [2001]. Critical Security, Democratisation and Television in Taiwan. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-70623-1. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Taiwan Television Enterprise (TTV), Taiwan's first television company, opened transmission on 10 October 1962 after being created by the Governor of Taiwan, Chou Chih–jou, Chiang's personal appointment to head the project. The Provincial Government provided 49 per cent of its capital and its director enjoyed a close personal relationship with Chiang's family, but lacked any experience in communications or journalism. From the start TTV was little more than an instrument of the government."

    8. Rao, Sandhya; Klopfenstein, Bruce C., eds. (2002). Cyberpath to Development in Asia: Issues and Challenges. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishing. p. 187. ISBN 0-275-96931-2. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The inauguration of Taiwan Television Enterprise in 1962 marked the arrival of television on the island . For more than thirty years, Taiwan's television market was dominated by three television companies namely: TTV, China Television Company, and China Television System."

    9. Rigger, Shelley (1999). Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Reform. London: Routledge. p. 73. ISBN 0-415-17209-8. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Taiwan's first television station was Taiwan Television (TTV), opened in 1962 by the Taiwan provincial government."

    10. Zhao, Yunze; Sun, Ping (2009). A History of Journalism and Communication in China. London: Routledge. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-138-85509-0. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Taiwan's first TV company – Taiwan Television Enterprise was founded in April 1962 and was set up to launch programming on October 10 in the same year. Taiwan Television Enterprise was established by Taiwan Provincial Government, private enterprises, and Japan's Fuji, Hitachi, Toshiba, and other joint investors. The capital was 30 million RMB (about US$4,349,213) in total with Japan's four consortiums holding 40 percent of the shares. The Taiwan Provincial Government held 49 percent of shares through its six banks (Hua Nan Bank, Land Bank, Bank of Taiwan, Chang Hwa Bank, Taiwan Cooperative Bank, and First Commercial Bank). Central Daily, CBC and other KMT party businesses also held shares as private identities."

    11. Zhu, Ying; Berry, Chris, eds. (2009). TV China. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-253-35257-6. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "In Taiwan, television was free-to-air from its beginnings in 1962, when Taiwan Television (Taiwan Dianshi) began broadcasting. Its impact was also limited initially. But when it began to show the local gezaixi opera forms that were so popular with the local population and established island-wide coverage in 1965, this changed. Film audiences dropped 30 per cent within a year. By 1975, 73 percent of the island's population had television sets and television was the most important medium by almost any measure."

    12. Yang, Ma-Li; Engbarth, Dennis (2013) [2000]. "Taiwan: All politics, no privacy". In Williams, Louise; Rich, Roland (eds.). Losing Control: Freedom of the Press in Asia. Canberra: ANU Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-1-925021-44-8. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Only three television stations were permitted: Taiwan Television, established in 1962 by the Taiwan Provincial Government, which held 49 per cent ownership with the KMT holding 12 per cent"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Taiwan Television (traditional Chinese: 臺灣電視公司; simplified Chinese: 台湾电视公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources given by Cunard which indicate not only notability but importance. The article needs some cruft removed and probably a longer history written by someone who reads Chinese. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Blast Gold[edit]

Marble Blast Gold (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)
Marble Blast Ultra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two games that don't seem particularly notable on their own. Current sourcing is just dubious-looking blogs from ages ago. Everything else is just the game itself or fan-created content. Found a lot of passing mentions along the lines of "this game reminds me of Marble Blast" or "Marble Blast pulled from such and such". There are a couple sources that come close, but none that seem to get this quite over the notability bar. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 NBT Cup (women)[edit]

2013 NBT Cup (women) (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tuvalu Independence Cup (women)[edit]

2013 Tuvalu Independence Cup (women) (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)

Contested prod. Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geomedical engineering[edit]

Geomedical engineering (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)

tagged with COI for a decade; the term was coined in a paper with only two citations since 2009 [1] near neologism to medical geology? fgnievinski (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. Could be a paragraph in the Medical geology article as "Geomedical Engineer" might be a job description for someone who works on mitigating these issues, but it doesn't stand alone as a separate discipline.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Young[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. She appears to be a pre-early-career researcher working on her doctorate, and mild local coverage of the species she studies does not make her notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: On further investigation, the subject appears mainly to publish as "Melanie J. Young" or "Melanie Young"; I found some co-authored research papers with up to ~20 citations: insufficient to meet my interpretation of WP:PROF, but more than the very low citations I was finding for "Mel Young". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she passes WP:GNG. The article needs expanding but on a quick bit of research I found she does have coverage over at least a 6 year period in two significant (New Zealand) national newspapers, a number of conservation websites, and a minor mention in The Guardian as an advocate for the conservation of yellow eyed penquins. NealeWellington (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added several more references and details. She is regularly cited by the main media outlets in New Zealand on the topic of yellow-eyed penguins to the point where I think she would meet WP:SCHOLAR on the basis of items 1 and 7 in her field of research. NealeWellington (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NealeWellington, although I am concerned about the fact that her page reads as promotional to me, particularly the part that lists her papers. Judging by the sources in the article currently, I think the subject is notable, but not everything that is currently on the page is notable/appropriate. A shorter article would suffice. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite happy for someone to trim the list of papers - it was simply a dump of everything she was invovled in to prove that she was more than your average phD student when it comes to her topic and to give her some credibility. NealeWellington (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Papers don't give you 'credibility', least of all notability. I still fail to see how someone who hasn't even completed her PhD can meet WP:SCHOLAR in the absence of either some other significant achievement or a field in which a PhD is not essential. Her advocacy might make her notable as an activist (advocacy is not a scholarly activity, it is a social/political activity), but her coverage for that is not all that extensive. There's a bit of WP:NOTYET about this. In the end, we have to decide whether a person is notable right now, and in my view, she is not, even if she looks to be well on the way towards becoming so eventually. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I feel that there's more subtlety at play here. Her publication record that Neale provided spans over 10 years, which is highly unusual for a PhD student and I don't think she can be compared to others like-for-like. I agree that I find it difficult to warrant her article under WP:SCHOLAR for academics per se, but I am not sure how significant conservation projects (which Neale has provided evidence of significant coverage over a long timespan) should be weighted. I do feel it's a borderline WP:TOOSOON case and could go either way. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment To have even a chance of meeting WP:SCHOLAR clause 1, it's being cited by others than counts, not just publishing. The key word is "independent". -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Having studied clause 7 of WP:SCHOLAR more closely, I'm striking my vote to be Neutral. Seems that the floor is higher than I originally interpreted it as. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Certainly does not meet WP:NPROF, and not convinced meets WP:GNG as is mostly local, but could be convinced otherwise. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how the subject meets WP:SNG, and I see no coverage of the subject herself, but instead of her topic of study, where she sometimes comments on. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 19:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely does not meet NPROF, and the claim for GNG is based on light coverage of studies she has been involved in or on the species she studies (with quotes from her in her capacity as a ranger or PhD student). No in-depth commentary on her whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough notable that criteria 1 of WP:NPROF may be applied. She is presently pursuing her doctorate so we possibly need an exceptional achievement otherwise. Cirton (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has been identified Star Mississippi 03:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart[edit]

The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart (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)

Deprodded because "reviews usually available", but I was unable to find any digging through newspapers.com or proquest. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Heinen, Frank. "The Great Rift – Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart (2010)" [nl]. Cinemagazine. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 582 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes from Google Translate: "More than nice are the extra pieces at the end of each episode, which show what a challenge it is to collect high-quality images of (often timid) wild animals. The shots behind the scenes make it clear that the life of a cameraman in the untouched wilderness is not always a bed of roses."

    2. "The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart". The Reporter. 2011-05-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 229 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "At the conclusion of The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart - take a look behind the scenes. Cameraman Gavin Newman has spent several years developing a remote underwater camera which he calls ‘Nemo'. He is about to send it on its maiden voyage on a descent into the cracks in the floor of the Southern Red Sea where no human eyes have seen before."

    3. Kalina, Paul (2011-05-12). "The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart, Sunday, May 15". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 128 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "It is home to some extraordinary wildlife and striking geological features, all of which is vividly captured in this first-rate program. With its sumptuous photography, unobtrusive narration and avoidance of rounding up the usual wildlife suspects, it's a textbook example of what nature shows should be."

    4. Chater, David; Clay, Joe (2010-01-23). "Rock & Chips; The Bible: A History; The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart; Lost Kingdoms of Africa". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 130 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The rarest footage of all is of the Kipunji monkey, never before filmed, which is on the brink of extinction. There is precious little narrative in the film, but with so much beauty and peace that it doesn’t much matter."

    5. "The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart, Sunday, 7.30pm, ABC1". The West Australian. 2011-05-13. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 82 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Accordingly, this BBC Worldwide documentary features some amazing landscapes, even if it does not quite reach the heights of some of the spectacular nature documentaries of recent years."

    6. Elder, Bruce (2012-01-28). "The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart, Saturday, January 28". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 123 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Otherwise it is the usual impressive footage – cheetahs bringing down Thomson's gazelles, elephants knocking down trees, giraffes devouring thorny acacia trees and a mother lion digging up warthog piglets to feed to her cubs. The commentary is by Ghanaian-born Hugh Quarshie, whose mellifluous tones are the equal of Attenborough's."

    7. Gaudet, John (2014). Papyrus. New York: Pegasus Books. ISBN 978-1-60598-597-8. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The book provides 86 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "This effort is a natural outgrowth of the fact that the valley is topographically distinct, something well shown in the 2010 BBC movie The Great Right: Africa's Wild Heart, a film narrated by Hugh Quarshie in three episodes built around the themes of fire, water, and grass. The film describes the highest mountains and deepest lakes of Africa, all found in the valley, along with the ash layers from active volcanoes that encourage the grasslands and provide the forage needed by the massive herds of game."

    8. Schwartzkoff, Louise (2011-05-15). "Free to Air - Sunday May 15". The Sun-Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 74 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "This documentary about the Great Rift Valley in East Africa proves there is no need to anthropomorphise the wildlife. Instead of cheesy manufactured storylines, it relies on intriguing facts, breathtaking footage and poetic narration from the velvet-voiced Hugh Quarshie."

    9. Townsend, Lucas (2011-05-15). "Sunday highlights". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.

      The article provides 95 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Australia's outdoors always does well when it comes to its good looks - we've always known that. But wait until you see what Africa is bringing to the table."

    10. "The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart". The Daily Telegraph. 2010-01-23. Retrieved 2022-05-16 – via PressReader.

      The review notes: "Yet another spectacular natural history series from the BBC, with the emphasis here as much on the landscapse of Africa's Great Rift Valley as the wildlife that inhabits it."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Great Rift: Africa's Wild Heart to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in view of the significant coverage identified above that includes reliable sources such as broadsheet newspapers, magazines and books so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to the coverage in reliable sources. Huggums537 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 03:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steffen Damborg[edit]

Steffen Damborg (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, appears to be largely promotional. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may need a little trimming however i fail to see how it fails to meet the General Notability Guide. Most of the content is properly referenced by a reliable source. The subject is a known personality in Danish Corporate and media fraternity. Zarar69 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a source must be reliable and independent and significantly covering the individual. References 1, 5 and 7 are written by an entity associated with the subject. 2 and 8 are speaker pages. 6 and 9 seem to be listings. 10 and 11 are written by the subject. Which leaves us with 3 (which collaterally discusses him) and 4 (which collaterally mentions Damborg being the director of SK Arhus). This is very far from WP:SIGCOV by independent sources. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator, notability is not demonstrated. This reads like a CV. What is he notable for? CT55555 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not not enough sources to show his notability. —Natalie RicciNatalie 00:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schenck[edit]

Paul Schenck (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:NBIO (see WP:RELPEOPLE). Ploni (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think he's notable for his religious conversation conversion, being a married catholic priest (there are only about 200 in the world), and taking a leading role in the anti-abortion movement.
  1. https://lancasteronline.com/features/faith_values/paul-schenks-journey-from-judaism-to-married-catholic-priest/article_a9df8ae8-a801-11e4-913c-930f7b854cab.html
  2. https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/scotus-decision-hobby-lobby-staff-react-108448
  3. https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-19970220-1997-02-20-9702200036-story.html
  4. https://www.pennlive.com/midstate/2010/07/rev_paul_schenck_ordained_as_p.html

I think this is an example of an article that needs improvement, not deletion. CT55555 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, being a married catholic priest is indeed rare and notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The list of his publications is sufficient to warrant keeping the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Wow a married priest, that is very rare and a good reason to keep this, list of his publications is also another good reason to keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 03:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katerina Matziou[edit]

Katerina Matziou (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:NACTOR Ploni (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pavlovsky[edit]

Ivan Pavlovsky (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 coverage outside of basic data and gymnastics competition results. Search failed to find any coverage from even Belarusian sources on his performance. WP:NGYMNAST only creates presumed notability but as seen from the lack of coverage of this athlete outside of primary sources, this presumption is often limited, unsurprisingly given this athlete's unremarkable placing at the Olympics. Kges1901 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belarus. Kges1901 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack any substantive sources that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a mention about him at [3], where it is stated that he trained in Grodno National sports school. -- Jarash (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is statistics of his Olympic performances in Олимпийская страна Беларусь [Olympic country Belarus] (in Russian). Минск: Международный центр интеграционной информации. Общественный пресс-центр Дома прессы. 2005. p. 285. ISBN 985-6715-07-5. I'll add it into the article whether it will be kept. --Jarash (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jarash: Does this mention go beyond mere statistics of his performance or include anything else about him? If sources only cover stats, he does not satisfy WP:GNG. Kges1901 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a couple of lines with his Olympic results. --Jarash (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears clear that the sourcing identified and put forward is enough to meet notability. Star Mississippi 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly Millionaires' Club (American game show)[edit]

Monopoly Millionaires' Club (American game show) (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)

Found nothing but press releases and "local man to appear on MMC" human interest stories. Could be merged with the article on the lottery game, but it's mostly just a plot summary of how the game is played and there's little verifiable info otherwise Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Elber, Lynn (2015-03-28). "The lottery meets Monopoly in new TV game show". Concord Monitor. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "It sounds like a Swiss Army knife version of a TV game show: a combination of a venerable board game, state lotteries, Las Vegas and seasoned comedian Billy Gardell as host. The result is Monopoly Millionaires’ Club, a syndicated series that draws on the board game’s “iconography” – Get Out of Jail and Pass Go cards and such – while morphing it into something new and telegenic."

    2. Owen, Rob (2015-03-25). "TV Preview: Billy Gardell hosts new Monopoly game show". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "The syndicated, weekly, one-hour “Monopoly Millionaires’ Club” debuts at 7 p.m. Saturday in Pittsburgh on WTAE with an encore of those weekly episodes airing Tuesday at 8 p.m. on cable’s GSN. Based on the Hasbro board game, a multistate lottery, Monopoly-themed scratch ticket is available in more than a dozen states, including Pennsylvania. The TV game show is taped at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas inside a 48,000-square-foot structure. The studio’s LED floor displays the iconic Monopoly board, and the audience, split into sections based on Monopoly tokens (boot, wheelbarrow, top hat, etc.), is made up of almost 400 lottery winners and their guests from around the country. (Unlike the tapings of most TV game shows, this is not one the general public can attend as an audience member; it’s restricted to lottery winners.)"

    3. Friedlander, Whitney (2015-03-27). "Billy Gardell Ready to Roll the Dice as 'Monopoly Millionaires' Club' Host". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "“Monopoly Millionaires’ Club,” the extremely flashy Las Vegas-set continuation of the multistate lottery game that ran last year, premieres this weekend. And while there are some hurdles that might keep it from passing “go” right away — the show is syndicated instead of dedicated to one network because some states don’t have a lottery system, and the lottery ticket game that prospective contestants entered to earn a place on the show was deemed too complicated and was suspended at the end of last year and brought back as an instant-win scratcher ticket game this month — there is one person who is ready to bet big on the project: “Mike and Molly” star Billy Gardell, who serves as host of the show."

    4. Starr, Michael (2015-03-27). "In the game (show): Billy Gardell set to host 'Monopoly Millionaires' Club'". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Gardell begins his run this Sunday (7 p.m./Ch. 11) as the host of “Monopoly Millionaires’ Club,” taped at a 50,000-foot sound stage outside the Rio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. It will also air Tuesdays (8 p.m.) on Game Show Network. ... As its name implies, “Monopoly Millionaires’ Club” — produced by Scientific Games Productions and Hasbro Studios — is based on the iconic board game and is connected to the Monopoly Millionaire Instant Ticket multi-state lottery. Randomly chosen contestants (400 of them) were flown out for a five-day stay in Vegas for the chance to compete on the show."

    5. Rosenberg, Scott A. (2015-03-24). "Billy Gardell gears up for 'Monopoly Millionaires' Club,' Garden of Laughs". AM New York Metro. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Of course, you can watch the show for some classic game-show appeal. Similar to “The Price is Right,” contestants get to play one of a series of games, here inspired by spots from Monopoly. So, for example, Ride the Rails is inspired by the four railroads. One of the unique attributes of this game show is that it’s not just the contestants who are in line to bring home the big bucks. The audience members, all winners of the contest on the back of the lottery ticket game, are seated in one of five sections (named after one of the iconic game pieces). The show’s contestants are selected from each of those sections, and whatever they win is split with that section. So if a contestant wins $100,000, the contestant gets half and the other half is split amongst the people in the contestant’s section."

    6. Boedeker, Hal (2015-03-26). "Billy Gardell loves giving away 'Monopoly' money". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Comedian Billy Gardell is so grateful about hitting the show-business jackpot as star of CBS' "Mike & Molly" that he's perfect casting to host TV's "Monopoly Millionaires' Club." ... The nationally syndicated game show debuts at 11:35 p.m. Saturday on WKMG-Channel 6. GSN will present episodes at 8 p.m. Tuesdays. The show is based on the Hasbro brand and features games (Electric Company, Community Chest) based on the Monopoly board."

    7. Boedeker, Hal (2014-08-06). "Billy Gardell to host 'Monopoly Millionaires' Club'". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: ""Mike & Molly" star Billy Gardell will host a syndicated game show called "Monopoly Millionaires' Club," based on the Monopoly brand, Scientific Games Corp. announced Wednesday."

    8. Albiniak, Paige (2016-02-09). "Exclusive: 'Monopoly Millionaires' Club' Won't Pass Go to Season 3". Broadcasting & Cable. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Scientific Games’ weekly game show, Monopoly Millionaires’ Club, will end its run after this season, confirms a spokesman for the program. The show’s last weekend on the air will be April 30 - May 1."

    9. Brissy, Breia (2015-01-07). "'Monopoly Millionaires' Club' gets a premiere date -- exclusive". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Here, EW has an exclusive first look at the show’s intricate set, which took four weeks to build and features one of the largest LED floors ever on TV. The set LED lighting requires more than 8,500 channels of control and consists of more than 473,976 individual LEDs on more than half a mile of tape."

    10. "Visiting Vegas for a "Monopoly Millionaires Club" taping and a chat with Billy Gardell". The Virginian-Pilot. 2015-10-15. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "It also doesn't hurt that the set for "Monopoly Millionaires Club" is bright, colorful, and downright gargantuan, so when there's not something happening on the stage, you can't help but get caught up in looking at your surroundings. Alas, there was no million-dollar winner at any point during the taping I attended, but I did see several folks walk away with substantial wads of cash, which was cool. "

    11. Andreeva, Nellie (2014-08-06). "Billy Gardell To Host 'Monopoly' Syndicated Game Show". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Monopoly Millionaires Club will be produced in front of a live studio audience in Las Vegas. Contestants, selected from the studio audience, will be vying for more than $2.5 million in prize money on each episode."

    12. Wohlfarth, Matt (2015-03-27). "Pittsburgh comic Billy Gardell steps up his game with Monopoly host gig". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article note: "The new show, which coincides with the 80th anniversary of the Monopoly board game, was taped at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. Twelve episodes were filmed in January, with a total of 21 planned for the first season. ... The show is produced in conjunction with several states' lotteries. The audience is made up of lottery winners who won their chance to participate."

    13. Dymski, Gary (2014-10-20). "Monopoly Millionaires' Club tickets go on sale". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Starting in February, a television show of the same name will air in syndication and on the Game Show Network. Contestants will be selected exclusively from lottery players who register their tickets online, the lottery said."

    14. Culver, Annie (2015-03-28). "Monopoly game show turns board game into 'Millionaires Club'". WATE-TV. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "It’s a new take on the iconic game of Monopoly. Actor and Comedian Billy Gardell is the host of the all new Monopoly Millionaires’ Club. The game show airs Saturday at 11:30 p.m. on WATE 6 On Your Side and there is some serious cash to be won. The show has taped 12 episodes so far and produced a pair of $1 million winners and other contestants who have claimed prizes in the $200,000 neighborhood."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Monopoly Millionaires’ Club to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard's sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that any of those sources are signfiicant coverage. Most of them are about the lottery game itself and only mention the show in passing, or reprints of PR pieces saying Billy Gardell will host. Sources 1-7 give literally no info about the show other than the host. That's hardly significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been a while since I've edited this regularly, but are the notability standards really that high now? A game show with a million-dollar prize based on one of the most popular board games of all time, with a notable host, airing for more than one season in syndication nationally *and* on GSN is at AFD? We're not talking about an unsourced list of episodes or a WP:TRIVIA list of the show's biggest winners here. Just an article covering the show's existence. Sourcing is definitely lacking as it stands, but that's not to say coverage doesn't exist anywhere, as Cunard has demonstrated. Call me an old-fashioned inclusionist if you wish I guess, but I think there's more than enough here to at the bare minimum warrant an article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out, the first seven sources Cunard picked up confirm literally nothing but the show's host. They're just rehashes of the same PR blurb. Sources 10-14 also mention the show only in passing. Literally the only info gleaned from FOURTEEN sources is "this show existed and was hosted by Billy Gardell". Nothing on the format or how long it lasted whatsoever. HOW IS THAT SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE?!?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, no need to yell. I respect your opinion and am just making a counter-argument in favor of the other side. Let's keep this WP:CIVIL here.
    Second, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "only in passing." With all due respect, I'm picking up a lot more than "this show existed and was hosted by Billy Gardell" from all of these put together. For example. source 10 includes an entire transcript of an interview with Gardell in a piece that also, among other things, details highlights from a typical taping day and notes that the origins of the game format were based on the lottery game. Source 11 mentions other aspects of Gardell's career, but does seem to be primarily focused on the show, even noting that there were two million-dollar winners during a taping session (hardly an insignificant occurrence in the game show world). It also includes a quote from the producer on why Gardell was selected as the host.
    Third, I also don't understand the argument "sources 1-7 give literally no info about the show other than the host." Source 3 gives production information on why the show is syndicated rather than tied to one network. Source 2 describes how the show's set resembles the board game's iconic layout. Source 4 explains how contestants were cast.
    I could go on. Expand the article with these sources, and I believe you'll have at the very least a decent piece here. Heck, I'll help do it myself if needed if you give me a couple of days. I welcome the conversation, but let's not completely disregard the references Cunard provided here. There's objectively more provided in them than just the show's existence and who hosted it. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not count toward notability. And there's still very little here. I'm curious to see how you can make something from nothing here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bcschneider53 (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the sources. In my quotes from the articles, I showed that there was substantial coverage in reliable sources about the show in which the coverage was not based on primary sources or interviews. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Woodcock (cyclist)[edit]

John Woodcock (cyclist) (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 have decided that only medalist are default notable for their competition in the Olympics. This guy was not only not a medalist, he came in 44th place. He was absolutely trounced in the Olympics. While the Olympedia entry may count as somewhat substnatial coverage, it clocks in at 3 long sentences, it is not enough by itself to constitute a passing of GNG, and no other substantial sources were found. There is [4] was listed at 19261 overall, and that source is sourced to Wikipedia, so adds nothing at all towards passing GNG. There is nothing to suggest that Woodcock meets any notability criteria. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Huh huh huh, Beavis, you said "woodcock". Huh huh huh huh. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this he was a founder of the Ireland National Cycling Association. He won multiple national titles in the 1920s and 1930s. With a quick WP:BEFORE, you would find he was mainly known as Jack, the Jack Woodcock Memorial race has been held multiple times in Ireland since [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. At worst redirect to Cycling at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's individual time trial, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an Irish newspaper archive? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are several, including [10] and [11] though they are subscription-based. Connormah (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly when did being "a" founder of a national association become reason for inclusion. He was one of multiple people involved in founding it. I do not think that suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the above sources say anything about Woodcock. The first is a blog. The rest say nothing about Woodcock merely name dropping the race. Being a founder of an organization is not a sign to notability, and name dropping a race is not significant coverage. I am not convinced that any of those proffered sources are even reliable, but since they literally say nothing about Woodcock they are not substantial coverage at all. I read through the Olympedia source, the one thing that says anything about Woodcock, and it is not enough on its own to pass GNG and says nothing that actually indicates notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • having a race named after you is not a sign of notability. None of those sources say anything about Woodcock.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "having a race named after you is not a sign of notability" I think you're wrong there, Lambert. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone been able to find WP:SIGCOV of Woodcock? BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried looking into the first Irish newspapers database. It looks like it will only let me search one newspaper at a time. I entered in Jack Woodcock as the search in the first newspaper, taking in the whole range of that newspaper. It gave me 2 hits for Jack and 1 for Woodcock, but none for both names in the same article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • County Tyrone is in Ulster so I searched in the Belfast Newsletter. At least with my searches I found no mentions of Woodcock there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The default in the Irish Newspaper Archive is all titles; I don't know how you found yourself limited to one. There are hundreds of results for John Woodcock cyclist, and I had to use several different search terms to get the info I wanted. Scolaire (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Silly me – I never tried to search for something on the front page of that site. It really is pretty useless, isn't it? Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a fair bit of coverage of him in the British Newspaper Archive, he was a multiple Irish record holder, searching for "J P Woodcock" gives a number of results with the summary giving an idea of the coverage, he also turns up as John or Jack P Woodcock so there's probably a lot more, similar searches can be made at irishtimes.com Piecesofuk (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm having difficulty searching the British and Irish archives to find sources from the 1920s, but I have to disagree with the nominator's assertion that "having a race named after you is not a sign of notability". While it is not a single wholesale stamp of notability in the Wikipedia sense, having things such as annual events named for you is one of the most fundamental indications of notability there is. Jacona (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've asked at the Irish WP and with a user who works on Irish topics for help establishing if there are sources for this individual or not (one, two). Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have updated the article from Irish newspaper sources. Scolaire (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified above. No case for deletion was made or exists. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won the Irish national championship in three different events in one year, (the 25, 50, and 100 miles). There is a race named after him. There are many, many articles in the Irish news archives (many mentioned above by Scolaire and Piecesofuk) that include Woodcock in the article title that should be SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination was a stretch, and source addition during this process has rendered any case for deletion null. A named race is definitely a sign of notability, and I would say that being a key founder of a national governing body is at least a potential one, but beyond this, this person was notable in a significant sport at national level over years. SeoR (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Chris Leach[edit]

J. Chris Leach (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 has multiple issues regarding NPOV and Notability. A major contributor to the article seems to be closely connected to the subject. DevSpenpai::talk 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that David Eppstein removed a notability tag in July 2020 with an edit summary stating "rm notability tag; obvious pass of WP:PROF#C5". Espresso Addict (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An endowed chair at a major university is a pass of WP:PROF#C5, even in a business school that finds endowments for many of its full professors. With four publications in triple-digit citation counts on Google Scholar, he also has a case for #C1. I trimmed some promotional wording surrounding his textbook coauthorship; I don't think it is good enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF#C4 because he was only added as a coauthor in the 7th edition, after the book had already become well-established. The material about the De Soto Initiative is also a little promotional in its wording but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while virtually unsourced currently (the single source is now dead, but was active back in 2020), David Eppstein is spot on regarding meeting WP:NPROF, which is why it passed NPP back in 2020. Onel5969 TT me 20:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per G5. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Waffles[edit]

Uncle Waffles (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 artist, sourced to typical churnalism, gossip and press releases. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 16:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people on the postage stamps of Turkmenistan (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 terrible. I have already nominated a number of these "lists of people on postage stamps" articles, including one that had been completely empty since 2008. I thought that was the worst, but I'm afraid that I was mistaken.

Since its inception as an unsourced list in 2010, this page has "listed" one person, who appeared on a stamp in 1991. Too bad that the first stamp in Turkmenistan only appeared in ... 1992 (and the first person to appear on a Turkmen stamp was not the founder of Pakistan, duh).

Even if this had been a factually correct list, it would fail WP:LISTN as a topic which hasn't received significant attention as a group. As it stands, it is simply a monument to the utter ridiculousness of most of these lists and belies all "but readers want it" claims. Luckily only 24 people (or webscrapers or so) have seen this page in the last 90 days[12]. Fram (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Turkmenistan. Fram (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one person does not a list make. We really need to cut back of the philatelycruft in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete possibly speedy, only one item that doesn't even appear to be correct Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is correct actually, Turkmenisan issued a stamp for Jinnah in December 2001, as a couple countries did for his 125th birthday. I don't have any problem with losing the one-element list, it looks like an enthusiast was hoping for stone soup. Stan (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Now I'm curious: which of these lists was completely empty? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Portuguese colonies! Fram (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Don't see any use for this title. Alex-h (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't see any sources, don't know if we'd need the article even then. Jacona (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless non-list. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Michael Ekanem[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jane Michael Ekanem (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:NBIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Michael Ekanem Ploni (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to President of Russia or an appropriate section thereof as decided on editorially. Star Mississippi 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces[edit]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces (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)

Similar to the discussion here, where a head of state is ex officio the commander in chief, it should not be a separate article but rather listed as one of the powers of the head of state. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The content on this page can easily be merged into President of Russia without issue, though if necessary, can be marked as a specific section discussing the office's powers as commander-in-chief. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 South Korean KT-1 Aircraft Base crash[edit]

2022 South Korean KT-1 Aircraft Base crash (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 military aviation accident. Military crashes are much more common than commercial aviation and even more so for training exercises. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Page Is Very Short And Not Very Notable Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soybean (disambiguation)[edit]

Soybean (disambiguation) (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)

Zero entries beside the primary topic that are plausibly called "soybean". All others are unlikely WP:PARTIAL title matches. I seriously doubt anyone calls various diseases of the soybean plant "soybean" (e.g. "my soybean is infected with soybean"). The only other entry is the soybean car, and the article never uses the shorthand "soybean" for it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:TITLEPTM and the arguments put forth by nomination, this falls likely into a nobody calls New York, York scenario with all of these matches. We don't link to Corn syrup from Corn (disambiguation) because despite being made from corn, no one calls it just "corn". The same applies to the soybean car, which as put for by the nominator is the only one that could feasibly be called "soybean". TartarTorte 13:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also favoring an early close, as I don't believe this will be particularly controversial of a move. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 01:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this is called a disambiguation page, it's really a list. (I don't think we need that list, either.) Jacona (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Tactful Saboteur. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Sabotage[edit]

Bureau of Sabotage (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)

Entirely plot summary and fails WP:GNG, was deprodded by a user who thinks it can be merged to The Tactful Saboteur. The deprodder added two merge tags, one to a nonexistent page, but did not open a merger discussion. I disagree, as there are no references. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Politics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per my PROD, this is an unreferenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:GNG, WP:V, etc. I am suprised that User:DGG makes us spend (not to say waste...) our time through discussion here, and a merge suggestion (which they didn't even elaborate on per talk). Those are not best practices. Merge what? There are not footnotes. Merge ORish fancruft? Strong no. If you want to rescue anything here, please start by finding sources and improving this. PS. Hint: rather than waste time here, I suggest that anyone interested in works of Herbert tries to improve The Tactful Saboteur, which doesn't look very good right now. Neither does Whipping Star. See The_Dosadi_Experiment#Reception for bare minimum needed to prevent those works from ending up here next. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nothing to merge, just synthesis, fancruft, and unsourced content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without prior deletion per WP:ATD-R, to allow sourcing and merging from this content without future admin intervention. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens Redirect where? I do support SOFTDELETE and redirecting, but we need a target. The Tactful Saboteur? Ok, but that article risks being deleted itself unless someone improves it... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searching for sources, both under its full name as well as the shortened "BuSab" name, turns up mentions in plot summaries and reviews of the novels and stories the group appeared in, but nothing in-depth on the agency in specific that would warrant a split. The only sources listed in the article are the stories and novels themselves, each of which already has its own article with a plot summary describing the group's role in them. A redirect to The Tactful Saboteur, the agency's first appearance, would probably make sense, but a merge is not really needed as that article already describes the plot information regarding the agency already, and there is no sourced non-plot information to move over. Rorshacma (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to The Tactful Saboteur. I deprodded it because there seemed to be an alternative to deletion. I probably should have explained on the talk p, but I thought it obvious, and I see some others here agree with me, tho they are for some reason !voting delete instead of redirect or merge. while ayign ti can beredirected or merged. I did not carry out the merge myself because I do not know the works involved, and I would consider it foolhardy to try to rewrite content about a work I did not know. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or second choice redirect without deletion) Passes WP:GSN, as the Beureau receives coverage in abundant independent WP:RS, such as the near 50 year old book "Dune and other works" and in sources published this last few years like "Living in Technical Legality" by good Kieran Tranter. As most of the coverage in the truly independent sources admitedly lack depth, as I see two former Arb favour redirection, I'll add that The Dosadi Experiment is probabaly the best target. Herbert has some interesting observations on the Law in that book, which could easilly apply to deletion policy and how it can be twisted for the uneccessary destruction of valuable knowledge. "The Law is a blind guide, a pot of bitter water. The Law is a deadly contest which can change as waves change." Though I'm sure he'd make an excpetion for sensible parts such as WP:Before. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeydHuxtable: Please provide specific sources that support notability, WP:SOURCESEXIST is not enough. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or selective merge to The Tactful Saboteur. The latter has issues, but there appear to be better sourcing options to fix it than there are for Bureau. Star Mississippi 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Tactful Saboteur as WP:ATD and as a plausible plot element/search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinan Yahdian Javier[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE only turned up trivial mentions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below. It would have been nice to have been pinged, so I extend that courtesy to @Angelo.romano:. GiantSnowman 06:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources provided below. --Angelo (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG, BEFORE clearly not done properly. Some sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and a whole bunch here 7. Player already has more than a handful pro appearances, honestly ridiculous nomination.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bola and Goal.com are more than just passing mentions so SPORTCRIT and GNG are met. It might be best to move to 'Dinan Javier' per WP:COMMONNAME if kept. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability has been established by reasoning of Keep voters clearly.ZanciD (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War in popular culture[edit]

War in popular culture (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)

Arguably, a very interesting topic. Possibly notable (ex. the existence of works like [13]), but not in this WP:TNTable form of a completely unreferenced TVtropic listcruft aka List of all media that mention the topic of war (the lead even admits the goal: "The following is a list of pop culture references to war."). Like all similar articles (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture), it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. That's what TV Tropes is for, folks. Or https://military-history.fandom.com PS. The "quality" of this page is further confirmed by the template at the bottom that states "Wikiquote has quotations related to Ernest Hemingway." :> PPS. We also have a fork of this at List of wars in fiction which likely needs a discussion here as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1805)[edit]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1805) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability in sources in article, one sentence in the description of papers, and a passing mention in a bio of his father. No better sources found online. Article gives little reason to believe that much more would be available. Fram (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I get the exact same sources used in the article in GScholar, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for Soft Deletion which is how I was going to close this one, so relisting it instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Plague of Icy Breath. Cholera and the Gateshead Community 1831–1832 says: "Two men,W. H. Burkett and J. Charlton, are said to have raised the possibility of opening a Gateshead Dispensary" and cites "Fallow, H. F., Gateshead Dispensary Centennial Souvenir 1832–1932. A Brief Retrospect (Gateshead 1932)" Sadly, I don't have access to that book to see if it has significant coverage. CT55555 (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sourcing found in this long discussion. And why was the title disambiguated when Thomas Jackson Charlton is itself a redlink? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've so far found no significant coverage of this person, but he is mentioned in passing in several biographies of his brother Robert M. Charlton (e.g. [14],[15], [16]) with whom he produced a book of poems (posthumously). But he also has basic biographic mentions in biographies of his father and son, so there is no clear target for redirect. Leaning towards delete, with no prejudice towards recreation if his role in the 1834 cholera epidemic can be fleshed out somewhat beyond a mere sentence. N.B. Thomas Jackson Charlton (Jr.) is also the full name of Thomas Charlton (rower). --Animalparty! (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Taiwan frigate scandal. Content remains available under the redirect for those wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Wang[edit]

Bruno Wang (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 contains harmful inaccuracies which are not adequately supported by the citations provided, which is impermissible in an article which falls under BLP rules. It should be deleted to avoid misinformation, but also because Bruno Wang, the article subject, is low profile and does not meet significant coverage standards according to WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited because of his father's (and not his) alleged involvement in a Taiwanese frigate scandal, which was also a single event. The article subject was in fact a student in the United States of America when these events took place.

The claims in the article that "Bruno and his father Andrew are key figures in the Taiwan frigate scandal with Bruno allegedly connected to the murder of Capt. Yin Ching-feng." is untrue about the article subject and not adequately sourced for a BLP. The source (irishtimes.com) alleges that Andrew Wang was connected to the alleged murder (which is untrue) but does not suggest that the article subject was. Similarly, the lead that the article subject is a "fugitive best known for his involvement in the Taiwan frigate scandal" is incorrect and unsourced. Only the article subject’s father was suspected to have been involved and the article subject has in fact been found by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in 2019 to be an "innocent third party."

The remainder of the page is commentary on the article subject's philanthropic activities, and the citations linked to these points indicate a low level of media coverage/interest.

In the interest of transparency, I have a connection to the article subject. [email protected] advised submitting a deletion request after they were emailed. Tidesino (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, coverage is overwhelming and the subject does a lot of self promotion so they are most definitely a public figure (low profile people generally don't have their own promotional websites[17]). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is still relatively unknown [prior rationale snipped], and he hasnt been convicted so I think a BLPREQUESTDELETE should be accepted. Jumpytoo Talk 06:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jumpytoo: there is no grounds to honor a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE where a subject meets WP:GNG as this one does. Also note that this is not a BLPREQUESTDELETE case as it is not being requested by the subject of the article, it only applies "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion," which hasn't happened here. Please also note that using the Daily Mail in that manner is a WP:BLP violation, please remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if GNG is met, I believe BLPREQUESTDELETE can still be applied, the WP notability stems from the WP:BLPCRIME content and as they are still only accusations I believe much more leeway can be given here (I could not find significant coverage about him that is mainly focused on his philanthropy, if such sources do exist on the other ventures alone that can meet NBIO then I can reconsider). Regarding if it is the article subject who requested this, I assumed it is someone authorized to speak on his behalf based off the COI disclosure, but I could be wrong here. @Tidesino:, would you like to elaborate on your connection to the subject, and what prompted you to request deletion? Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Jumptytoo:, I can confirm that I am Mr Wang's advisor (hence my COI disclosure) and I am authorised to make this request on his behalf. I was prompted to do so after emailing [email protected] for advice - the editor who picked up the email advised that submitting a deletion request was the most appropriate course of action. Tidesino (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of our coverage is about the crime per say, the related coverage we have seems to be about what happened to the proceeds of crime which is a little different (clearly not WP:1E). The coverage of his involvement in the prince's cash for honor scandal for example. Also note that page had 987 visitors in the last month, not what one would expect for a low profile figure or someone known only for a crime committed 20+ years ago (and again, he has a promotional website so he does not qualify as a low profile figure... Its hard to conceive of a way in which having your own purely promotional website does not qualify as "actively seek out media attention"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many low-profile people have their own websites to express themselves professionally (I have one myself), so I wouldn't put too much on that. I also believe implying usage of dirty money still fits in WP:BLPCRIME. Maybe an article on Andrew Wang is possible if the WP:1E issue regarding him could be surmounted, in which case an redirection is possible as ATD. But because BLP applies to Bruno I just think its better to be safe than sorry. Jumpytoo Talk 05:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is circular and without a logical basis. You could just as easily conclude that you are a public figure, particularly if that website is actually published under your own name (remember that we hold bloggers and citizen journalists to be public figures). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is difficult to reconcile the "low profile" claim with him creating a company called Bruno Wang Productions, being a spokesperson for the organization, hiring a PR agency (close up media) to promote statements from Bruno Wang about Bruno Wang Productions.[1] Those actions seems like someone seeking publicity. Then I see that he is in the news, not because of his father's actions, but because he gave 500,000 to Prince Charles. I think he is notable. I think if there are inaccuracies you should draw attention to them and show sources that refute them on the talk page of the article. CT55555 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bruno Wang Productions: 'People, Places and Things' Secures Nominations for 4 Olivier Awards." Wireless News, 12 Apr. 2016. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A449179767/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=f7d52821. Accessed 5 May 2022.
On the topic of whether Mr Wang is low-profile/self-promoting, he has business interests and it is necessary to provide updates about those businesses in the way that many non-notable business people and companies do. Regarding the news you mention, Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue. Moreover, the donation amount referred to is inaccurate as the £500,000 is attributed to a different donor in the original source. It should also be noted that these articles quote from the Daily Mail as their source, which, as previously mentioned, is typically considered inappropriate for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue" doesn't appear to be true, he is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself, see The Telegraph's feature piece entitled "Prince Charles's charity mired in further controversy over donor linked to Taiwanese arms deal."[18]. This PR release [19] is about his philanthropy, not his business or company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my analysis, and please tell me if I've erred:
  1. He named him company after himself by choice
  2. He chose to be the spokes person
  3. He was not forced to stand in front of a photographer
  4. He could have made the donations quietly, without publicity, but chose not to
So my two questions are:
A - Are any of those 4 points incorrect
B - Are they hallmarks of low or high profile people? CT55555 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Using your name as a company enables the company's work to be associated with you, but is not the same as seeking publicity.
  2. Being a company spokesperson is also not the same as seeking publicity. It provides the name of someone to whom questions can be directed.
  3. Being photographed is not the same as seeking publicity. This is especially true when the subject never publicised this photo.
  4. The official plaque recording the gift thanks Pureland Foundation, not the article subject. Neither the article subject or Pureland Foundation sought any publicity for the donation.
I trust these answers also address your further questions at A and B.Tidesino (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Thank you for your comments. I don't think his actions are consistent with those of a low profile individual. After considering carefully and giving you the chance to persuade me otherwise, I !vote keep CT55555 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC) (scored out my own comment CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Tidesino: This press release isn't even about philanthropy, "Bruno Wang, an avid film buff and a fan of comic book legends, hereby invites the public to watch the movie The Avengers that is set to be released on May 4, 2012. Anyone who does so is also invited to log onto Bruno Wang's Facebook profile at https://www.facebook.com/brunowangtaiwan to share their own reviews of the film so that their thoughts can be shared with the entire Facebook community and so that people can be aware of the general reaction of what some feel will be a blockbuster."[20] including a whole promotional "About Bruno Wang" section. There are a whole bunch of these... "Bruno Wang Recaps a Memorable Weekend at the British Open, Featuring an Unforgettable Finish"[21], "Film and Anime Fan Bruno Wang to Attend London Film & Comic Con in July of 2012 at Olympia Grand Hall"[22], "Bruno Wang to Attend Comic World 34 in Hong Kong With Mrs. Wang to Enjoy Anime Exhibits and Presentations"[23], . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tidesino: you replied above but you missed this one, would you not agree that these press releases are promoting Mr Wang personally and not his business interests? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye’s Back: This material is not about the article subject, but rather about another person (or persons) with the same name.
It is also incorrect to say Mr Wang “is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself” - it should be noted that there is no actual wording within the Telegraph article (or any others) that supports any such claims made against him. Tidesino (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that possible? Surely they can't all be for a different "Bruno Wang" unless the other Bruno Wang also has a charity named "Pure Land Foundation" [24]. This is clearly the article subject and his charity seeking publicity for a donation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source [8] does refer to the article subject, I was referring to [4],[5],[6] and [7] which have no connection to the article subject Tidesino (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that [8] (at least) does refer to the article subject do you now wish to re-evaluate your statement about Mr Wang not seeking publicity? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the website "Bruno Wang News"[25] run by the subject of the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as single Google News search gives as:
  1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plastic-surgeon-funded-prince-s-therapy-centre-5xk36kgph
  2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9205395/Christine-Chiu-millions-boob-jobs-Prince-Charless-new-Wellbeing-Centre.html
  3. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bling-empires-christine-chiu-on-the-pressures-of-marrying-into-a-chinese-dynasty-zfp6hp9g8
  4. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/internasional/20220216204208-134-760179/polisi-selidiki-yayasan-pangeran-charles-terkait-sogokan-wn-saudi
  5. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/memorial-service-stephen-hawking-6w0zp3kx0

If I'm missing something, please correct me.--- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail cannot be used. This simply mentions his name in a list of attendees. This is simply a photo caption as is this. THis is why a search is not necessarily helpful in determining notability @NeverTry4Me. No judgement on CNNI piece as I cannot read it, but it doesn't appear to be substantive. Star Mississippi 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: kind of a moot point given that the coverage already included in the article gets us well over the GNG bar. We don't need additional sources to establish notability, we have more than enough already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not taking a position on the article @Horse Eye's Back, just responding to @NeverTry4Me's query of If I'm missing something, please correct me. because "here's a bunch of hits" isn't helpful in an AfD if they don't in fact prove notability. Star Mississippi 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:I agree that it isn't helpful, in answering their question of "if I'm missing something" I'd note that there is a considerable amount of feature coverage of the subject outside of English (primarily in traditional Mandarin, as would be expected of the coverage of a notable figure from Taiwan) but I am not fluent and I don't trust google translate for BLP so perhaps the help of someone fluent would be helpful. Coverage in languages other than english *does* contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. I only disregarded the CNNI one as I cannot read it, not because it's not usable. The English sourcing that NT4M presented doesn't add up to anything other than confirming Wang's identity, which does not appear to be at issue. Star Mississippi 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the opening gambit of the article was that his father was involved in a scandle, notability is not inherited. The little coverage there is fails WP:GNG and is of poor quality. Fleeting mentions do not = notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: Surely you aren't saying that [26] is just a passing mention or low quality, that just wouldn't be credible given the length and depth of the coverage or the quality of the OCCRP (literally among the highest in the world). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map and before taking the "No consensus" route, I want to give this discussion another week to see if some consensus can emerge, specifically on whether BLP violations are still present and whether, without them, GNG is met, that there is still sourcing beyond passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to relisting comment: The debate seems to have become overly focused on whether the subject is low-profile, but that should not be the core argument of this debate. Being low-profile is a personal preference of Mr Wang. There is some material online about work which Mr Wang or his Foundation supports in a professional capacity, but this does not demonstrate seeking wider publicity, as this material supports the events and the charitable causes, not the donation. There is also a blog, which does refer to some productions Mr Wang has supported, but this is limited to personal reflections on their content among other subjects.
Regardless, none of this contributes to Mr Wang’s notability, which does not meet GNG. What few relevant mentions there are online are either passing, or minor theatre industry press etc. or derive from association with the frigate litigation, which various courts have found to be “scandalous and vexatious” and indeed have found the article subject to be an innocent third party. BLPCRIME states “A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.”
Until I raised this debate, there were appalling unfounded accusations in the article, wrongly connecting Mr Wang to an alleged murder which were hastily removed but should never have been added to begin with. The article has since been updated with unencyclopedic information such as company address locations and disputes with an advisory team. The addition of these minor details at this time does not satisfy GNG. All of this falls short of Wikipedia standards for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT (not my first)
On low profile
You are the one who said he was "low profile" in the context of WP:BIO1E. And it was a fair point to debate. But you should now not be surprised that the accuracy of the claim you asked us to discuss...is now being discussed. I consider the WP:BLP set of rules to not be breached.
On accuracy
If earlier versions of the article were incorrect, but now fixed, then that is a good thing and we should continue to discuss the article as it stands now.
On notability
To try to get us back on the track that User:Liz was steering us towards, that therefore leaves the other main issues of WP:GNG. To satisfy that, we'd generally expect significant coverage in several sources. I think in this context, we should be rigorous about that. So are there at least WP:THREE good sources?
  1. https://www.occrp.org/en/suisse-secrets/leading-taiwan-politician-had-secret-credit-suisse-account-at-time-of-major-defense-corruption-scandal this is significant
  2. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/09/21/2003764737 is borderline, but I think enough to be one of three
  3. https://www.artlini.net/charles-and-chinese-donor-wanted-in-taiwan/ is in depth, but I am not sure about the quality of the source
  4. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/19/prince-charless-charity-mired-controversy-donor-linked-taiwanese/ mentions him several times, it's more than trivial
In summary
So reflecting on the points that we've been directed to focus on, I think it's BLP compliant and I think it's a GNG pass, even if it's not a slam dunk for either. And I remain with my keep vote, and I remain open minded to being persuaded otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is including a feature length news article[27] about Mr Wang's very public court dispute with his financial advisory team unencyclopedic (note that this is feature length coverage which has nothing to do with the frigate scandal)? How is running a website called 'Bruno Wang News' to promote news about Bruno Wang not seeking wider publicity? Thank you for confirming that there are not currently any BLP issues with the page, I apologize for any errors which may have previously been present. I will also note that if they had been found innocent as you claim we'd either have some media coverage of that or the Taiwanese MOJ would have taken down their digital wanted poster but its still live[28]. Mr Wang appears to still be an active fugitive from justice. What we do have coverage of is a conviction in the Jersey islands which returned millions of Mr Wang's stolen dollars to Taiwan, did that slip your mind when listing various courts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There may be debate to be had regarding the content of the page itself (which still contains inaccuracies), but the only issue to be determined here is should it exist at all? To summarise the most important reasons why it shouldn’t:
  1. WPCRIME rules are clear that if someone is only notable in connection with a crime/trial/litigation, a separate page is not necessary.
  2. GNG have not been satisfied to indicate that Mr Wang was mentioned in a widely circulated news story where the frigate litigation aspect does not factor. The other coverage referred to is not material which has had any traction in the media, nor would it.
  3. It has been suggested that Mr Wang has a conviction in Jersey. This is not correct. There are no convictions against Mr Wang, or his family, in any jurisdiction including in Taiwan. Indeed, Mr Wang has been found to be an innocent third party by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in connection with the frigate litigation.
  4. Inaccurate claims like this can cause real harm. Major mistakes were made including wrongly accusing Mr Wang of being connected to an alleged murder and other mistakes are still present in this page. Mistakes have appeared in this debate too, I note that several articles about the wrong Bruno Wang were quoted at one point. Given this, sources here should not be accepted at face value.
In conclusion, whilst we could continue to debate content issues, this isn’t necessary because by applying normal principles, the page should not exist at all. Tidesino (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find guidance in WP:CRIME very relevant and compelling. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."
I'm changing my !vote to redirect. CT55555 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the reporting about the decision by the court in Jersey inaccurate? I remain unconvinced, WP:GNG appears to be met and "disqualify everything even tangentially related to criminal activity and then count the remaining articles" is not how GNG works. GNG is satisfied by [29][30][31][32][33][34], if you want to continue to challenge under WPCRIME you can (that is your most likely path to making your boss happy) but GNG has clearly been met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge (used the wrong term, self-edit CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)) I found the reference to WP:CRIME by the nominator compelling. I change my vote to redirected and score out my keep from above. CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: do you mean redirect or merge? There is available encyclopedic material relating to that person that is not incorporated into the existing article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you correctly identified that I miswrote, indeed I meant the one that keeps content, so that would be merge (sorry for ambiguity, I tend to vote keep/delete/drafity until now. I'll score out and correct on my next edit. CT55555 (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Trainor[edit]

Saxon Trainor (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:NBIO Ploni (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melobee[edit]

Melobee (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)

Notability, looks to be disbanded by now Happyecheveria (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happyecheveria (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As of right now there are no notability here, sadly. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only three hits in the newspaper archives are notices for the company's annual meeting. A few pressreleases have been disseminated promising disruption and rehaul of music industry practices, but there is no evidence of actual impact. Not notable. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 07:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 55 kg[edit]

2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 55 kg (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 wrestling tournament. Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Also nominating the following:[reply]

2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 60 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 63 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 67 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 72 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 77 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 82 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 87 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 97 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 130 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment Prior year tournament pages appear to include non-English sources suggesting notability (e.g., 2014 Vehbi Emre Tournament) and there are numerous English sources about the event (e.g. [35] for 2022, [36] for 2017). I can't say for certain that the English sources alone meet WP:GNG and I can't contextualize the non-English sources well enough to know if they are WP:RS, but there seems to be more here than just the poorly-sourced 2022 page. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 05:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALBA Human Rights Documentary Film Festival[edit]

ALBA Human Rights Documentary Film Festival (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 found no significant coverage for this film festival. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google scholar indicates this article mentions the festival, but I can't open it, so have no idea if it's significant. https://www.torrossa.com/it/resources/an/4691960 When you say you didn't find any significant coverage, is it logical for me to assume that means you found some coverage you considered to be not significant? If so, can you share it please, in case we all collectively find enough stuff that might add up to significance?
I also found a brief mention in "CARMEL INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL TO SCREEN FILM PROFESSOR'S NEW DOCUMENTARY." States News Service, 20 Oct. 2015. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A432218854/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=00e9c7ec. Accessed 11 May 2022 by searching for "ALBA Human Rights Film Festival" (i.e. by dropping the "Documentary") CT55555 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to share all the pages of trivial mentions and non-independent sources. Notability doesn't work like that anyway on Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK... I can't force you. But it seemed like a reasonable question. I was only asking because the way you said it suggested you found some stuff. WP:BASIC does allow us to consider multiple independent sources and the way you wrote did not make it clear what you found. CT55555 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite my comments above, I think I've searched enough to establish that while the festival does exist and seems pretty cool, it's not sufficiently notable for wikipedia. CT55555 (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable at all, self referenced... Scrap it and forget it. Kolma8 (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwing[edit]

Fleetwing (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 found no significant coverage for either company mentioned. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of sourcing. And if either company does prove to be notable, give them separate articles next time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a second I thought it was referring to the SNES game Pilotwings. It is unsourced and I could not find any sources Rlink2 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 03:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Sihag[edit]

Sunil Sihag (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 declined the speedy delete due to the comments on the talk page and at least some assertion of notability. I believe it should be deleted but I'd like to have more discussion and come to a consensus in the community. I'm unconvinced on the notability of the individual meeting WP:GNG and I have concerns about WP:ADV. Might be a good idea to review this from a WP:BLP point of view, and the sources provided could use a check from others (a bit of a language barrier for me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It seems WP:PROMO
  2. It was rejected many times at AfD and then the editor seems to have bypassed AfD
  3. If I understand the comments on the talk page correctly, the editor who created the article is saying it was created by a public relations ("PR") person/agent. Now that is not 100% clear, but it seems like what they are saying, which is probably why it seems like WP:PROMO. CT55555 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 06:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjerwas[edit]

Sanjerwas (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 have no issue with recreating this given decent information, but what we have is a bad case of an unverifiable geostub, and given the problems we've had with those, it needs to go as it stands. I could not identify it with any place on a map, for starters. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. North America1000 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I hope you withdraw this nomination, as it appears to me to be a failure of BEFORE. As much as I hate geostubs, it meets GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place. The 2011 Census of India website is permadead, but Census2011.co.in, although blacklisted, replicates the actual census data accurately and IMO is a useful substitute until we get Census 2022. If you search Sanjerwas on that site, it comes up as a village in Dadri tehsil of Bhiwani district. In 2016, Dadri tehsil was upgraded to a district, Charkhi Dadri district, taking all its villages with it. The name Sanjerwas also comes up on a bunch of historical censuses if you search GBooks. I've no idea how you couldn't identify it on a map - it comes right up under a slight variant spelling (Sanjarwas vs Sanjerwas - these slight differences are extremely common with Indian village name transliterations) when I search GMaps, right next to Phogat (see [37]). It's also listed on the official map for the district on the district's website. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Sanjarwas. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally-recognised place. As shown above the village is listed on the Charkhi Dadri district map and is also on Google Maps under the name of Sanjarwas. AusLondonder (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it should be with the E - that's the spelling on the Census. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PMC. Meets GEOLAND as a populated and legally-recognized place -- Ab207 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sutrisno Bin Darimin[edit]

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

Article created by blocked user. Non notable weightlifting competitor. Does not satisfy WP:N nor GNG Whiteguru (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. If an article like "list of weightlifting records" or something exists, he could be mentioned on there, but otherwise isn't worth his own article. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable as he won medals at the World Championships, Asian Championships and World Junior Championships. Article needs improving, not deleting. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the article was nominated for deletion because of notability, my idea is Keep, as winning multiple awards at notable tournaments. But if the reason o nomination is being created by a blocked user, I have a natural idea.ZanciD (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry's World[edit]

Henry's World (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)

PRODded by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) who claimed lack of notability, but subsequently deprodded by NemesisAT (talk · contribs) because the PRODder nominated too many articles in quick succession — 200, according to his count. But I have to agree with Hammer here — there are zero results about this TV show in Google News. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod rationale; there just aren't any sources. A further search on ProQuest was no more fruitful. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator, lacking sources. CT55555 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I'm willing to reconsider if somebody actually has more luck finding better sources than I've been able to. Since this show premiered 20 years ago, I did run a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not Google well, and really just didn't find anything that would make a difference: I found glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of Michael McGowan's later work (e.g. Saint Ralph, One Week or All My Puny Sorrows), I found a couple of stray mentions of it being nominated for a midlevel television award (Banff Rockies) that would be acceptable if the show had solid sourcing overall but isn't highly meganotable enough to clinch a WP:TVSHOW pass all by itself if it's the only evidence of notability we can find, and I found accidental text matches in phrases like "York quotes the late horticulturalist Henry Kock from the University of Guelph...In Henry's world..." or "Student Frank McCarthy-Whalen was thrilled to be able to wear Henry's world championship medal", and I found press releases self-published by the Family Channel announcing its own programming schedule — but the strongest source I actually found about the show was a 62-word blurb in an omnibus listicle about all the new Canadian kids' TV shows that debuted on any Canadian TV channel in fall 2002, which is far from enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First hit I got was the National Post here. Even were it not notable, surely it would be a redirect to List of programs broadcast by Family Channel#Animated Series 5. Nfitz (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Challen, Paul (2002-09-28). "Welcome to Henry's World: A lively new children's series finds its place in Canadian animation history". National Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The TV profile notes: "Little Henry Wiggins is an eight-year-old boy who has one heck of a vivid imagination. Like most kids, his fancy lands him in trouble from time to time. ... Henry's World is making animation history as the first stop-motion series ever produced entirely in Canada. ... The fact that there's a lot of kid-based reality in Henry's World is no accident. Series creator/producer Michael McGowan used his parenting experiences with his own son, named — you guessed it! — Henry, in developing the title character and his pals, Fraidy Begonia, Doris the Dragon, the eccentric Uncle Neptune and school bully Darwin."

    2. Ball, Ryan (2003-03-06). "Alliance Atlantis Plunges into Second Season of Henry's World". Animation Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

      The article notes: "AAC KIDS, Alliance Atlantis’ children’s label, has begun principal photography on the second season of the stop-motion animated series, Henry’s World. Produced in association with The Family Channel Inc. and with the participation of the Canadian Television Fund, the show is seen on more than 50 countries worldwide and Alliance Atlantis hopes to extend its reach with a showing at MIP-TV."

    3. Crump, William D. (2019). "Henry's World". Happy Holidays—Animated!: A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year's Cartoons on Television and Film. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 134. ISBN 978-1-4766-7293-9. Retrieved 2022-05-08 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The first stop-motion animated series produced entirely in Canada, this children's television program ran for 26 episodes on the Family Channel from 2002 to 2005. The protagonist Henry Wiggins was an eight-year-old boy who discovered at the age of five that each time he ate his mother's mashed carrots, he could have one wish fulfilled. Those who knew Henry's secret included best friend Fraidy Begonia, pet dog Margaret, and closet dragon Doris. Other characters: Henry's parents, Uncle Neptune, teacher Ms. Pierre, and Darwin the fat bully."

    4. "Henry's World". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

      The article notes: "While hilarity and high-jinks reign supreme, Henry also learns some of life's lessons along the way. But while Henry has been given the key to unlock universal mysteries, his road to enlightenment is liberally peppered with the incredible and outlandish escapades that only an eight-year-old could dream up."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Switch On". The Australian. 2002-10-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "Henry's World. 4.10pm, ABC. Apparently this is the first Canadian stop-motion animated series. Make of that what you will. Henry is a young boy who develops super powers when he eats carrots, and although you suspect that this is just a conspiracy to get children to eat vegetables, it will appeal to its young audience."

      2. Courtis, Brian (2002-10-20). "Critic's Choice". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "Henry's World, Tuesday, ABC, 4.10pm Think the kids will be fooled by Henry Wiggins? I doubt it. Still, there are less entertaining ways to get them to polish off those vegetables. Henry is an eight-year-old boy who discovers he gains extraordinary powers whenever he eats his mother's mushy carrots. They can send him off to Pluto or tunnelling through the earth. But his adventures, often with his friends, his pet dog Margaret and Doris the Dinosaur, often lead to high jinks. Henry's World is the first stop-motion animated series produced entirely in Canada. Mushy carrots? Wait until Henry discovers the wonders of broccoli!"

      3. "From bad puppets to Atwood Stories; Canadian lineup borrows old ideas, tries some outrageous new ones and relies heavily on documentaries". Waterloo Region Record. 2002-09-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "And Henry's World, the first stop-motion animated series ever entirely produced in Canada, follows the adventures of an eight-year-old boy whenever he eats his mom's mushy carrots."

      4. "Greenfingers vie for title". Sunday Mail. 2002-10-20. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "The ABC welcomes the new series Henry's World at 4.10pm on Tuesday. It is the story of Henry Wiggins, an eight-year-old boy, who gains amazing powers whenever he eats his mother's mushy carrots."

      5. "Canada has 7 nominations for Rockies". The Hamilton Spectator. The Canadian Press. 2003-04-09. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "Canada's contenders in the Banff TV festival include a made-for-TV movie, animation, sports programs ... Canada also shares nominations in animation for Henry's World: Darwin For A Day, and performance programming for Le Mozart Noir: Reviving A Legend."

      6. Barnier, Linda (2002-10-22). "ChannelSurf - Tv Highlights". The Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "HENRY'S WORLD 4.10pm, ABC HAVING trouble with getting the kids to eat their veggies? This new animated series follows the adventures of Henry Wiggins ¤ an eight-year-old boy who has amazing powers whenever he eats his Mum's carrots. Henry's insatiable curiousity, coupled with carrot eating, sparks off a series of extraordinary events."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Henry's World to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cunard can you recheck your links? 1, 2, and 4 are all not working. After that I gave up on trying others. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering (talk · contribs), was Internet Archive down at the time you tried accessing them? These links all work for me. If the Internet Archive links do not work, you can also use the "Archived from the original link" part of the sources to access the original links. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Cunard, archived sources loaded for me. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to provide time for input regarding the several new sources provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trippin'[edit]

Trippin' (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:NTV, zero sourcing found. Deprodded because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Martel, Ned (2005-03-30). "Out saving the planet with celebrity guests". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: ""Trippin" combines school and recess, as Diaz leads celebrity adventurers to wild places in ecological jeopardy. This isn't nature photography à la Jacques Cousteau or Marlin Perkins; instead, the show invites viewers to be part of an eco-entourage. In Nepal, the actress Eva Mendes and the hip-hop star Redman conducted sing-alongs with kids who run an eco-club. Kelly Slater, the pro surfer, shredded waves above the Costa Rican coral reefs before Diaz went scuba diving to examine their intricacies. And in the Yellowstone outback, the singer DMX dropped his gangsta-rap resistance, picked up his discarded cigarette butts and eventually proclaimed, "I like camping!" "Trippin" presents endangered animals in their natural habitats, but it also showcases performers outside theirs. "

    2. Pavao, Kate (2022-02-24). "Trippin'. TV review by Kate Pavao, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "But, while there are some earth-friendly facts flashed across the screen throughout the show, the eco-premise just isn't cohesive enough, so in the end it doesn't seem completely sincere. The celebs arrive at a beautiful spot, learn about a big problem, explore a bit, meet some people, then leave. If they did more work while they were there -- or if Diaz assembled a complete cast of stars who really got into the project -- it would make for a smoother ride."

    3. Pierce, Scott D. (2005-03-28). "Diaz is 'Trippin'". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Cameron Diaz is "Trippin' "— and she assures us it's not just a star trip. She is, however, the star and executive producer of "Trippin'," the new MTV series that's part travelogue, part environmental primer, part extreme challenge — and, yes, part star trip. Beginning tonight at 8:30, Diaz and her celebrity pals travel to various exotic sites, participate in various cool stunts and do their fair share of tree huggin'."

    4. Bentley, Rick (2005-03-28). "Cameron Diaz is trippin' - In her new MTV show, the actress takes celebrities on trips to highlight ecology". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Cameron Diaz won't say where she is. MTV executives are equally as tight-lipped about the location of the film star. All that is certain is she is talking, via satellite, with television critics. She's in a warm climate in a rain forest to produce an episode of her reality television series "Trippin'." No, the name has nothing to do with taking drugs. In the 10-week series, Diaz leads groups of celebrities from the music, sports and acting worlds on trips to remote locations around the globe. The idea of the show is to provide a look at ways to preserve these exotic locations from the onslaught of civilization."

    5. O'Connor, Austin (2005-04-01). "Cameron Diaz is Trippin' -- but the elephant is the star". The Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "It happens that I was watching the premiere episode of Trippin', which chronicles Diaz and her celebrity friends as they travel to exotic parts of the planet and visit environmentally sensitive areas. At the beginning of this week's show, she explained that she would be traveling to Nepal, which, according to her, is one of the only places in the world where crocodiles, elephants, tigers and rhinos live together. Apparently, celebrities don't go to zoos. ... Besides, without Redman's outlandish outbursts, most of Trippin' would consist of watching wild animals poop and listening to Diaz talk about poop. Yes, you read that correctly. In fact, even with Redman, most of the show consists of those things."

    6. Breznican, Anthony (2005-03-25). "Where in the world is Cameron Diaz? - Globe-trotting for MTV and maintaining a low profile in Hollywood". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Trippin' also gives Diaz a chance to show off her notorious klutziness. ... Her Trippin' camera crew captured her sandsurfing in the Atacama Desert of Chile when she slipped off the board and slammed face-first into the dune. ... A look at where the series takes her and her companions:  Actress Eva Mendes, hip-hop star Redman, Blink-182's Mark Hoppus DMX, stunt biker Mat Hoffman, Rebecca Romijn Drew Barrymore, actor Farnsworth Bentley, skater Erik Koston, makeup artist Gucci Westman Costa Rica/Honduras: Kid Rock, Jessica Alba, surf champ Kelly Slater Justin Timberlake, Jimmy Fallon, singer Talib Kweli"

    7. "Trippin'". People. Vol. 63, no. 15. 2005-04-18. ISSN 0093-7673.

      The article notes: "Despite Diaz's admirable goal, Ego-Trippin' might be a better title for her show. On each leg of her journey, she recruits celeb pals such as Jessica Alba, Drew Barrymore and Kid Rock to accompany her. ... we see Diaz blithely dismissing the camera crew so she can shower after a sweaty day of sightseeing (well, she is the executive producer) and learn that tentmate Mendes is arachnophobic."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trippin' to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two full relistings, consensus, per input received here and relative to Wikipedia deletion policies, is for the article to be retained. The nominator quoted an opinion essay as a rationale for deletion, which is not a policy or guideline, and stated in the nomination the topic "seems" to fail the opinion essay. The nominator stated that there is a lack of sources and that they couldn't find any, which somewhat qualifies the article for deletion, although a specific notability guideline was not cited. However, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, and not being able to find sources does not equate to automatic non-notability, particularly when a specific notability guideline is not cited affirming qualification of deletion per deletion policies. Sources were provided in the discussion, which essentially nullifies the concept of no sources being found, because several were provided here, hence they have since been findable. However, the nominator did not check back in to the discussion to comment about the sources provided. No other users have opined for deletion, and several have stated that the topic is notable per the sources provided herein. The user that !voted for redirection also did not check back in to provide input about all of the sources provided. North America1000 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ & the Fro[edit]

DJ & the Fro (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)

Deprodded with addition of {{cleanup}} tag, which does not address the lack of sources. Zero sourcing found; therefore, the show seems to fail WP:NTV Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. Invoking an essay as if it's policy/guideline, "X fails WP:ESSAY", is not itself a good rationale, but I say redirect since I can't seem to find anything on Google/Google News that would help substantiate the content of the article or establish notability (particularly WP:GNG. Article is likely to remain a stub of a non-notable TV series.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Croop, Kari (2022-02-24). "DJ & the Fro. TV review by Kari Croop, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "DJ & the Fro is slacker television, which means it succeeds in meeting its own low expectations. So is it funny? Well, sometimes, but the laugh factor probably depends on your taste when it comes to humor -- and your age. This show is aimed squarely at the YouTube generation. When it comes to kid apropriateness, DJ & the Fro really isn't, although older teens (and boys, especially) will probably want to watch. And since the show is essentially helping your kids find videos they might have missed on their own YouTube searches, it's just one more source of content you'll have to keep tabs on."

    2. Zahed, Ramin (2009). "Couple of Slackers Watching Clips. MTV's new show DJ & The Fro offers an irresistible compilation of viral videos along with snarky comments by a pair of animated desk slaves". Animation Magazine. Vol. 23, no. 6. p. 20. EBSCOhost 43347175.

      The article notes: "Every generation needs its own versionof Beavis and Butt-head—a couple ofslackers who love to crack wise about the insane video clips of the moment. At least that’s what the creators of MTV’s new summer show DJ & The Fro believe. DaveJeser and Matt Silverstein, the funny duo behind Comedy Central’s hit show DrawnTogether, thought it would be a fun idea to have a couple of YouTube generation commentators. This time around, the dudes are a couple of goofy office drones named DJ and The Fro who love watching video clips during office hours. ... The duo first pitched the premise to FX, but eventually, the show landed on MTV,where the programming execs were hun-gry again for animated content aimed at a young, hip and mostly male audience. ... To produce the animation, the teamtapped Mark Marek, an animator and production designer they had worked with on their show Crank Yankers."

    3. "Cartoon dudes love viral video". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. 2009-06-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "They're the stars of "DJ & the Fro," a new animated series on MTV. Whereas Beavis and Butt-Head pickled their brains via rock videos, DJ and the Fro love passing time at their desk jobs by sneaking peeks at viral videos - often ones of people in the midst of stupid stunts gone awry.On the animated side, our two heroes are less politically correct than Borat, and they delve into lots of genitalia jokes that flesh-and-blood humans couldn't get away with delivering on the boob tube ..."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Schechner, Sam (2010-06-14). "Reality Check: MTV Bets on Scripts". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

        The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "MTV has a checkered track-record with scripted programs in recent years. Most recently, 2009 animated comedy "DJ & the Fro" aired only one season."

      2. Hibberd, James (2009-03-11). "MTV follows script on new laugh track". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The projects include a 20-episode series order for a new animated series titled “DJ and the Fro,” about two office drones who swap viral videos while surrounded by workplace mayhem."

      3. Meningher, Naor; Weinstein, Eytan (2020-03-17). "Episode 186: Coronavirus, Politics and Reality TV (Roy Iddan)". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Roy Iddan is a scriptwriter, he’s created and/or written many Israeli TV shows. Roy was also the production designer for the 2009 MTV show Dj & the Fro."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow DJ & the Fro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, There are multiple sources given that support notability. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 majority of the keep votes seem to be citing non policy based reasons for keeping and the sourcing has not been shown to be sufficient. Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Nixon[edit]

Katie Nixon (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, only trivial mentions across all sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Northern Ireland. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not fail WP:GNG, the person is a European Champion, which is pretty significant bearing in mind that she is a champion of an entire continent within his sport. She also competed in the Commonwealth Games and the World Championships. (Furthermore it is a stub). The sources include the Commonwealth Games Federation, the BBC and Bowls Europe. I cannot understand why the article has been proposed for deletion. Pipesmoking Legend (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG clearly asks for significant coverage. Where is this? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My searching finds nothing helpful to satisfy WP:GNG. Sports specific notability has nothing about lawn bowling and being a European Champion, while significant, seems not to generate significant coverage. Happy to reconsider if better sources are identified. Gab4gab (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. European and British champion in her sport would appear to equate to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at sports notability I do find some sports where European or British championships would suggest notability, but not for lawn bowling and not in general for any sport. Gab4gab (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In general we have held that people who have won a national championship title of a major country in any sport are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSPORTS says, for some sports, that winning a particular championship indicates sufficient coverage is likely to exist. So it's quite a leap to have extended that guidance to any sport in your past decisions. However things do change and a recent Sports notability request for comment was closed with consensus to require at least one source with significant coverage in a sports biography. This article has no sources with significant coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Coverage is too insignificant. >>> Extorc.talk 06:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pipesmoking Legend and Necrothesp, and WP:NSPORTS. Even if there is minor coverage across all sources, the combined coverage of all sources is quite significant, and the athlete is a champion. Huggums537 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the following source assessment table, there is no significant coverage, despite WP:GNG requiring multiple, and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 requiring deletion if no significant coverage can be found.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://g2014results.thecgf.com/athlete/cycling_road/1023633/katie_nixon.html Yes ? No Stats only ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/sport/bowls/35916450 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://bowlseurope.com/ebu-team-championships-2011/ Yes ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://britishislesbowls.com/history-of-the-bibc/previous-winners/ ? ? No Stats only ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/sport/commonwealth-games/28574558 Yes Yes No Limited to a brief statistical summary of her teams participation in the quarter finals of the commonwealth games ✘ No
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13287432.england-piped-to-top-bowls-prize/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ 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}}.
BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nixon is an athlete who has received coverage multiple times in national news media such as the BBC. The most substantive BBC article covering Nixon is this one. In sum, I agree with the "keep" side here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scores of their matches and that they were disappointed is significant coverage? That's a low bar. The included comments by Greechan and Nixon are not independent coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the Tuvalu Games[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Football at the Tuvalu Games (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 per Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some contributors may be unaware that WP:NFOOTBALL has been revoked, as such these arguments are deemed invalid and delete prevails. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imo Fiamalua[edit]

Imo Fiamalua (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 President of Ukraine. The content is available under the redirect for anyone desirous of merging. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine[edit]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (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 the President is ex officio the supreme commander-in-chief by virtue of Article 106(17) of the Constitution, is there a need for this article? For instance, just as the President of the US is the CinC ex officio of the US Armed Forces, it is enumerated as a power of the President rather than a separate act. This should be merged into President of Ukraine. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge into President of Ukraine. Though I made it a different article on the basis of Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces being a separate article itself (as well as Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine being an article on Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias), moving this article into President of Ukraine is a better idea that, to be quite honest, didn't cross my mind. As the creator/sole editor of the article, I'll proceed with moving it into the article of President of Ukraine. Mupper-san (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I have initiated the same process with respect to that article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into President of Ukraine. Not as useful as a stand-alone article could be useful for merging. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 04:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maison du Patrimoine en Brocéliande[edit]

Maison du Patrimoine en Brocéliande (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)

Same as French article, dead links, WP:N Happyecheveria (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aqualung (software)[edit]

Aqualung (software) (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 software. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find anything Rlink2 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Here's a source providing relatively significant coverage from Opensource.com, which is published by Red Hat:
– Adding a refined search parameter below. North America1000 03:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn per improvements. Although I didn't explicitly say so earlier, I am also retracting my "delete", meaning there is no longer any reason to keep this open. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag waver[edit]

Flag waver (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)

Nominating on behalf of an IP with the following rationale

A strange page that seems to be something of a cross between a DAB page and an article. In recent years this has been trimmed down to make it function more like a disambiguation page, but all of the entries are invalid because they fail WP:DABMENTION - only one of the linked pages mention Flag wavers and that's in an external link. Going back through the page history it becomes clear that this page used to have more article like content [38], but this is just a WP:DICDEF, a page that lists off a couple of definitions of the phrase. This page doesn't work as a DAB page and doesn't work as an article, so I think it should be deleted.) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Highly unlikely search term, even with the new entries it still would not be sufficient. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 16:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep. I've replaced all the (bad) existing entries and scraped together three four legit ones (plus a wiktionary link). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do Clarityfiend's edits change your mind, @Qwaiiplayer, Cranloa12n, TenPoundHammer, and Mythdon:?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe No, they do not. I reaffirm my Delete. Given other editors have recently changed their votes, I no long reaffirm my Delete, and support a Keep status. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 00:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (IP who wrote the nom statment) I would support keeping the dab page in its current form, it has been much improved since I nominated it and now contains multiple entries that actually meet the criteria for inclusion on a DAB page. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above rationalle and page improvements I withdraw the nomination. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 03:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrDoctor[edit]

DrDoctor (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)

None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. The references all rely on company announcements or PR. HighKing++ 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and United Kingdom. HighKing++ 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of coverage in independent sources. Coverage of most companies is based on company announcements. Its a significant player in the British NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. Certainly "plenty of coverage" is not part of the criteria, especially (as you've admitted) is based on company announcements. HighKing++ 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is independent content in the HSJ coverage and in the stuff from NHS trusts. Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You won't get your point across without at least linking to the "coverage" and at least referring to (or even better, pointing to the para number which contains) the "Independent Content" within those references. Also, the "Independent Content" must pass CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV. Can you do that? HighKing++ 10:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for your claim of "independent content" - did you not even notice the "Written by DrDoctor" graphic on the articles? HighKing++ 13:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are plenty of independent sources. I will leave it to Rathfelder to choose some. Oculi (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is whether there is coverage. Not whether its in the article. The HSJ coverage is in considerable depth. Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The HSJ articles have a big hard-to-miss graphic entitled "Written by DrDoctor" on them. Not independent. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not this one: [39] Rathfelder (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but that particular article discusses scrapping follow-up appointments and PIFU Pathways and asks the CEO, Tom Whicher, for his views. This is neither significant (fails SIGCOV) nor contains in-depth information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH) nor has any "Independent Content" (fails ORGIND) since it blindly reprints everything the CEO has to say and nothing more. Was there any particular part of that article that you believe met NCORP? Did you read the article (after all, it is behind a paywall)? HighKing++ 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are misrepresenting the Health Service Journal report. They are examining the company's claims critically and comparing what they say with the views of NHS managers. Its significant because follow-up appointments and PIFU Pathways are the main claim of notability of the company and very significant in the impact of technology on the NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean that the article/journalist is "examining the company's claims critically"? The journalist simply prints what the topic company says and reprints what everyone else that has been quoted says. Where's the critical analysis? Where's the WP:ORGIND "Independent Content"? Point me to a paragraph? But even if we were to agree to disagree on that point, where's the in-depth analysis of the topic company which is required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH? The WP:SIRS section of NCORP clearly states that an article must fulfill all the criteria in order to be counted towards notability criteria. HighKing++ 11:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of independent coverage and this organisation is important to coverage of the NHS. Bigwig7 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Bigwig7, saying that the "organisation is important" isn't a reason to Keep in our NCORP guideline, that's just an opinion. You say there's plenty of "independent coverage" - that might be a reason to keep but you haven't provided any links and references must meet NCORP. Please provide some links. HighKing++ 13:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:SOURCESEXIST is a weak argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balto-Slavic swastika[edit]

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

The article was created as a joke. Among the obvious violations: incorrect indication of pages in the sources, original research, etc. In addition, the article copies text from other articles. Noraskulk (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I also see these numerous violations, see the notes to the links in the article. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_12&oldid=1088824058"