Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 18 May 20 >

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 merge to Nestor Makhno. Star Mississippi 01:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emilian Makhno[edit]

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

PROD removed. The references in this article inherit notability from this person's brother, Nestor Makhn. That he was shot in mistaken indentity of his brother does not give notability. The references do not address the biography of this person.
Checking references, two references do not bring results; another gives several mentions (the last reference). Fails WP:NBIO Whiteguru (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Whiteguru (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • two references do not bring results Can you elaborate and which sources? czar 21:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that two of the references are not yielding results for you is likely because of different transliterations. Palij 1976 uses "Omelian", Malet 1982 uses "Omelyan", Peters 1970 and Skirda 2004 both use "Emilian", and Darch 2020 uses "Emel’ian". As "Emilian" seemed to be the common name, this is the one I used for this article. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable and a lack of apparent sources indicating notability when searched. A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I remain unconvinced that the subject is indeed non-notable, per the reasons mentioned above. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Conditional Delete- I fail to see the notability of this individual, rather his notability is only in relation to his brother, Nestor Makhno. Merging the info and creating a redirect would likely be the best outcome unless something more substantive is added. If the page can be expanded to include more notable events than just him getting shot for his brother, then it can be kept. Etriusus 17:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 01:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mekhla Kumar[edit]

Mekhla Kumar (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:MUSICBIO. Ploni (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per WP:MUSICBIO#1, she has been the focus of coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, but not all of it is in-depth, and I am not able to access The Australian source. However, with additions to the article since the AfD nomination, there has been sustained coverage of her, including related to the notable 2019 award, so there also appears to be support for WP:BASIC notability as a musician. Beccaynr (talk) 00:41, 22 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Stahl[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Most of her roles are just bit parts. Sources in article are either WP:PRIMARY, directory listings, or passing name-drops. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" due to socking and WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I remember her from Baywatch (in fact I saw the AfD because there is a Baywatch rerun on right now, so I typed her name into the search bar). That makes the citation tag bogus since she is obviously listed in the credits, which are on the dvds, which are available in the usual places and therefore verifiable. That's enough to convince me that people doing this tagging etc. aren't putting enough thought into it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:738F (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not how citations work. "Oh, I saw her name with my own eyes on the DVD!" Well how do you cite that in the article? You need reliable third party sources that others can corroborate. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her name was familiar to me, so I checked her on IMDB and she has quite a range of acting roles, on mainstream shows, certainly more than many other actors that have been justified a page. Certainly passed WP:ACTOR. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I've heard of it" is not a reason to keep. Where are the sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • See wikipedia policy WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" - Check her IMDB page, seems to have had a notable career to me - in comparison to many actors who have less roles but have a wikipedia page.. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0821479/ Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      All of her roles are cameos. There are still zero sources beyond IMDb, which is not reliable as it's user submitted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deathlibrarian: I love how everyone in this discussion is just going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when pressed for sources. Did you find any reliable sources that I didn't? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm using IMDB as evidence, to support compliance with WP:NACTOR, please see my note above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        IMDb is not a reliable source because it's user generated content. Did you miss the part where I said that? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        IMDB is regularly used by editors to determine what shows an actor has been in, in terms of seeing whether someone is notable or not via WP:NACTOR policy. As for you saying "she's only been in cameos"... that is incorrect. She played regular roles in Baywatch, Thunder in Paradise, and Baywatch nights, and she has played quite a few guest roles in a number of different shows. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That still doesn't change the fact that you can't source an article entirely to IMDb. Why do you keep dodging the question when I ask you "where are the sources"? Did you find sources? Answer me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not trying to source the article to IMDB, because you can't use IMDB as a reference. I'm proving that she qualifies with wikipedia policy for being notable. I've added four RS as references, including this which discusses her as one of the 5 main cast of Baywatch nights (so no, not just a cameo). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (-DT, (Dave Tobenkin, staff writer?) (Oct 10, 1994). "'Baywatch Nights' clears Chris Craf" (PDF). Broadcasting & Cable. p. 14.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) "...and soap regular Lisa Stahl as co-owner of the agency..... Stahl had a recurring role on the soap The Bold and the Beautiful, a featured role in The Young and the Restless and has guest-starred on Baywatch, Thunder in Paradise and Moonlighting.". Featured role in YOTR, recurring role The B&B, staring/recurring for at least start of Baywatch Nights, guest-star in Baywatch+. This was in 1994. WikiVirusC(talk) 04:59, 24 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. As no one is actually contesting deletion. 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 01:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Shabanov[edit]

Ismail Shabanov (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 came across this article a weeks or so ago following a complaint aw WT:BLP. As it stands this is a BLP with woefully inadequate sourcing. This article currently cites two sources, an interview with Zavtra, an extreme right newspaper, and a piece by the Strategic Culture Foundation which is predominantly about something else but repeats some interview quotes by Ismail Shabanov from another source. Both of these sources are way, way below the level of reliability we should be using in a BLP, and both of them do not count towards notability as they are simply interviews. I tried to do a WP:BEFORE search but was hampered by not speaking Russian - there is the possibility that I missed some coverage in reliable sources somewhere else. Over its existence this article has been BLP prodded once, normal prodded twice and tagged for A7 speedy deletion, so it's probably time this came to AfD. 192.76.8.71 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created discussion page on behalf of IP nominator[1] WikiVirusC(talk) 19:54, 12 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 23:55, 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 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 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolu Ibitola[edit]

Tolu Ibitola (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 the general notability guidelines. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 23:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 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 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 12:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habiba Sinare[edit]

Habiba Sinare (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 any notability. IMDB refs don't contribute to notability and the rest all appear to be either one ref repeated used or derived from a press release. Draft:Habiba Sinare has been rejected as unsuitable for Wikipedia and this looks like an attempt to circumvent the Draft review process. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   16:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 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 delete. per policy-based input. Star Mississippi 01:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The God of Small Things (film)[edit]

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

despite being screened at cannes, no evidence this is a notable film. so basically the same reason as the last AFD. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • one must understand the Notability term under wikipedia policy. You should always provide sources to claim your opinion. You cannot just claim “ no evidence this is a notable film” ,and not provide any evidence to back your biased opinion. You need to prove evidence that there Cannes or other media is not notable. At this point your opinion infringe the Free Speech rights and Wikipedia policy. Adamme18 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • your talk page shares biased opinion with another user who shares the same interests and biases, this is possible hint that profile is run by same person, can be received as bullying rather than contributing to an article to make it better. This kind of behavior is unwanted. Adamme18 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about its awards? – Mehedi Abedin 22:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn’t it obvious that if an award or recognition is given by festival or news media -who is reliable and notable makes the award notable too Adamme18 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no change, notability-wise, from when the topic was deleted in December 2021. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the detailed nomination of the previous AfD. The awards are not notable. However if someone has more sources on coverage or review, and needs time to add them, this can be moved to draft too. (Note that I went through all sources, removed some, and also added a new one, but I cannot salvage the article.) Jay (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - both the novel and It's adaptation has relevance. Abbasulu (talk) 20:31, 23 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Judge[edit]

Derek Judge (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 satisfy WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:01, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Weyte[edit]

Stephan Weyte (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)

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 21:56, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Currie (footballer, born 1997)[edit]

Ryan Currie (footballer, born 1997) (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete don't find any reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 00:40, 25 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 (G5) by @JBW:. GiantSnowman 13:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Duckrell[edit]

Moses Duckrell (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:42, 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 Speedy Delete. Deleted as G5 by GBW (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Thomas[edit]

Milan Thomas (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:44, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gould (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

Matthew Gould (footballer, born 1994) (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:43, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Hunter (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

George Hunter (footballer, born 1996) (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No basis for keeping this article. Jacona (talk) 00:41, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan Moyes (footballer, born 1990)[edit]

Ewan Moyes (footballer, born 1990) (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't find any reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 00:41, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Jacobs (footballer, born 1991)[edit]

Devon Jacobs (footballer, born 1991) (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing indicates notability. Jacona (talk) 00:43, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Quinn (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

Connor Quinn (footballer, born 1998) (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can't find any reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 00:45, 25 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Donaldson (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

Bradley Donaldson (footballer, born 1994) (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, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input RedPatch (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 00:44, 25 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 23:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singa Mwambe[edit]

Singa Mwambe (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. Initial rationale was "No WP:SIGCOV located on a search. Kept finding stuff about an orchestra, and even when I added "Linafoot" I got nothing but WP mirrors."

De-PROD rationale was "given that this club played at the highest possible level in DR Congo, SIGCOV must exist per the longstanding unofficial guideline used at WP:FOOTYN. I can't find any, though."

This absurd argument is based on a complete misreading of FOOTYN, which says "Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet the general notability guideline." It goes on to say that the unofficial guideline "may indicate at what level teams generally" meet GNG. It does not say that "SIGCOV must exist" for such teams, nor that we must assume that it does in the absence of any evidence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, when I searched for "OC Singa Mwambe," some trivial coverage like this is available. Still, I don't see anything to suggest notability. Jogurney (talk) 14:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uota Ale[edit]

Uota Ale (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) 20:06, 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 23:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nui F.C. (women)[edit]

Nui F.C. (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) 20:04, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akelei Lima'alofa[edit]

Akelei Lima'alofa (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) 20:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with all of the above. It is also a stub. Perhaps it can be merged with another entry PaulPachad (talk) 23:16, 25 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 23:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Gift (EP)[edit]

Christmas Gift (EP) (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)

Largely unremarkable EP that hasn't really garnered enough coverage to satisfy WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:43, 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk or Walk[edit]

Talk or Walk (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)

Short-lived show. Got two bits of coverage in 2001 and nothing since. The Broadcasting + Cable source is a press release. As it only aired in one market it's unlikely to be notable Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I don't disagree that the show was short-lived or that it only existed in one market, the standard of inclusion for a Wikipedia article is the existence of multiple reliable published sources that discuss the subject. This program was broadcast nationally, and the best argument for its deletion would be that there are no sources which discuss it, not that it was only short-lived or that the coverage of it is old. Also, the Broadcasting & Cable ref doesn't look like a press release to me, it looks like a legitimate broadcasting and cable industry news article (based on the company's Wikipedia article and the page on which the article about Talk or Walk appears)-- if it is a press release, then please indicate how this is so. To TenPoundHammer: what could possibly have caused you to notice this article more than two years after its creation?? A loose necktie (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found it from working backward from Scott Sternberg. The fact that all the coverage seems to come from 2001 also seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS. It got one or two blurbs of coverage at its premire and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Garron, Barry (2001-09-17). "'Talk or Walk'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 370, no. 2. pp. 13–14. ProQuest 2587890946.

      The review notes: "That's not the case with "Talk or Walk," a new syndicated entry from Tribune Entertainment, which almost daily slides back and forth, usually within the same show. An episode that begins as a thoughtful, reasoned debate about one of today's more controversial issues can, and often does, end up as a nasty, sloppy, embarrassing brawl in which one woman accuses another of muscling in on her boyfriend. Host Michael Baisden, a Chicago Transit driver-turned-best-selling relationship author, does his best to accommodate those extremes, but the results are often uneven. In Wednesday's show, the episode sent to critics for review, the opening segment features two seniors and longtime friends from Oklahoma City."

    2. Starr, Michael (2001-10-18). "This Show's a Killer... ... And It Nearly Killed Me, Says 'Walk or Talk' Dating Game Player". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The article notes: "STRUGGLING relationship show "Talk or Walk" has come under fire after one of its guests filed a claim with the FCC - saying he was manipulated by the show's producers and later contemplated suicide. ... To make matters worse, Lerman's "Talk or Walk" segment has been the object of ridicule on E!'s "Talk Soup" show, which pokes fun at talk shows."

    3. Berman, Marc (2001-09-14). "Author and relationships expert Michael Baisden hosts new talk show: 'Talk or Walk' debuts Sept. 17". Indianapolis Recorder. ProQuest 367434583.

      The article notes: ""Talk or Walk," is the compelling and fast-paced new reality series that combines the emotion of talk, the conflict of court shows and the fascination of a relationship series.  The one-hour, five-day-a-week series from Tribune Entertainment in association with Emmy Award-winning Scott Sternberg Productions is hosted by Michael Baisden, a nationally renowned relationship specialist and best-selling author. It premieres in national syndication on Sept. 17 and airs locally on WXIN Fox 59 at 10 a.m. ...  In the three different segments in the hour that are presented, intimate and unexpected details are revealed with a dramatic resolution that wraps up their fascinating stories. It is the resolution to each guest's situations that distinguishes "Talk or Walk" from all other daytime programs. ...  Scott Stemberg is executive producer. Tracy Mazuer is co-executive producer. Kathy Giaconia and Jacquie Jordan are supervising producers. The series is directed by Barry Glazer."

    4. ""Bad Boy" of literature Michael Baisden broadens author horizons with videos and new talk show". Jacksonville Free Press. 2001-03-28. ProQuest 365079264.

      The article notes: " Baisden recently signed a deal with Tribune Broadcasting to host his long anticipated national talk show, "Talk or Walk" scheduled to air in the fall of 2001. The subject will be relationships at the turning point and brought to resolution in the show. The program will feature people from all walks of life who have reached impasses in their relationships. After listening to both sides of the story, host Michael Baisden and the studio audience will offer insightful opinions as to whether reconciliation appears possible, the featured guest then make a momentous decision - will they Talk or Walk? "

    5. ""Talk or Walk": New reality-based TV show to debut on Sept. 17 with Baisden as its new host". New Journal and Guide. 2001-09-05. ProQuest 569523737.

      The article notes: "The one-hour, five-day-a-week series combines the emotion of talk, the conflict of court shows and the fascination of a relationship series. Produced by Tribune Entertainment, it is hosted by Michael Baisden, a nationally renowned relationship specialist and best-selling author. It will tape before a studio audience."

    6. Brennan, Steve; Andreeva, Nellie (2000-10-19). "'Talk' walks as first '01 pickup". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 365, no. 15. pp. 1, 8. ProQuest 2467909443.

      The article notes: "The pilot, presented by Tribune Entertainment to the station group last week, features one woman who was advised to "talk" but instead decided to "walk," much to the consternation of her spouse."

    7. Grego, Melissa (2001-01-15). "Aud plays voyeur in dating games". Variety. Vol. 381, no. 8. pp. 6, 28. ProQuest 236242515.

      The article notes: "The day before Tribune Entertainment's "Talk or Walk" pilot was due to shoot, the featured guests took the run-through seriously and opted to walk. ... "Talk or Walk," which has been cleared on Tribune Broadcasting stations for daytime, is one of at least six potential new firstrun relationship shows on offer at NATPE 2001, representing the biggest trend among the new crop. ... Skein is hosted by author/relationship expert Michael Baisden and features people from varied backgrounds who have reached a turning point in a relationship - whether as friends, lovers, business partners, neighbors or relatives. At show's end, the studio audience gives an opinion on whether the problems seem resolvable, and the couple decides whether to "talk" (seek a way to work it out), or "walk" (end their association completely)."

    8. Benson, Lorri Antosz (2001-09-30). "Host Baisden's Talk or Walk helps people in crisis choose their paths". Evansville Courier & Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Talk or Walk features people from all walks of life, who have reached a turning point in their relationship. Three twosomes are presented during each show; married or dating couples, parents, siblings, co-workers, friends, neighbors — all of whom are at impasse over some issue."

    9. Benson, Lorri Antosz (2001-11-18). "Talk or Walk producer guests on a touching episode of her own talk show". Evansville Courier & Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "This isn't the only example from "Talk or Walk" of how life can be stranger than fiction. After another show, a man called in to say one of the guests was his wife's long-estranged sister. They hadn't spoken for years and his wife wanted to tell her sister that their father was very ill."

    10. Less significant coverage:
      1. Owen, Rob (2001-08-23). "Tuned In: Reruns offer best viewing options in otherwise dull syndicated season". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "In a weird hybrid of courtroom and relationship shows, author Michael Baisden hosts "Talk or Walk" (noon weekdays, WPGH, premieres Sept. 17). In this series, two people who have reached an impasse (friends, lovers, co-workers, neighbors) plead their case. Baisden and a studio audience then offer their opinion on whether reconciliation is possible."

      2. Jakle, Jeanne (2001-08-22). "Networks offer more reality TV - Two new shows with 'Survivor' twists top the lineup for fall entertainment". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: ""Talk or Walk" (Monday-Friday; debuts Sept. 17 at 10 a.m. on UPN affiliate KBEJ) People from all walks of life (couples, parents and siblings, neighbors, co-workers) try to cope with problems in their relationships. Michael Baisden, a relationship specialist and author ("Never Satisfied: How and Why Men Cheat"), will listen to both sides. He and the audience then will offer opinions as to whether the twosomes can be reconciled. After listening to the input, the guests will either talk out their differences or walk away."

      3. Farhi, Paul (2007-06-01). "Steamy host turns on new audience to talk radio". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Baisden got his first full-time hosting gig in television, not radio. In 2001, Tribune Broadcasting, an arm of the Chicago TV and newspaper company, signed him to host a syndicated show called "Talk or Walk." Couples or friends described their problems and left it to the audience to vote on whether they should end their relationship. Debuting a week after the 2001 terrorist attacks, it lasted one season."

      4. Yourse, Robyn-Denise (2005-06-10). "Radio 'bad boy' touts good values - Baisden on a roll with call-in show". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Next came a brief foray into TV as host of a show called "Talk or Walk." It premiered the week after the September 11 attacks and was canceled after a single season."

      5. Epstein, Warren (2001-11-22). "Swallow some Pepto for these TV turkeys". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: ""Talk or Walk" - Host Michael Baisden, the author of "Never Satisfied: How and Why Men Cheat" presides over this interpersonal circus about families, friends and lovers who fight it out and then decide whether or not to reconcile. Who do you feel more sorry for: the host, the guests or us viewers? The show airs locally on KXTU/Channel 57."

      6. Schlosser, Joe (2001-12-03). "Walk". Broadcasting & Cable. Vol. 131, no. 50. p. 4. ProQuest 225305337.

        The article notes: "The November sweeps have taken their toll on two first-run syndicated shows. Tribune Entertainment has canceled new talk/relationship series Talk or Walk after 10 weeks, and Twentieth has pulled the plug on sophomore court series Power of Attorney. Talk or Walk had been struggling, averaging a 0.7 national rating, and Power of Attorney, with an average 1.8 rating in its second season, is down 25% from last year at this time, according to Nielsen."

      7. Grego, Melissa (2001-04-09). "Trib runs with 'Walk'". Variety. Vol. 382, no. 8. p. 49. ProQuest 236307841.

        The article notes: "Tribune Entertainment has declared a firm go on the production of "Talk or Walk," the company's talk strip for broadcast syndication this fall. Hosted by relationship expert Michael Baisden and exec produced by Scott Sternberg, skein has been sold to stations in markets repping 92% coverage of the United States."

      8. Littleton, Cynthia (2001-04-04). "'Talk' walks in 92% of country". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 367, no. 36. pp. 5, 27. ProQuest 2467883036.

        The article notes: ""Talk or Walk," hosted by author Michael Baisden, has been cleared in 154 markets on stations covering 92% of U.S. television households, including 48 of the top 50 markets, Tribune Entertainment president Dick Askin said Tuesday. The Tribune Broadcasting station group will carry the hourlong strip in top markets, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, while other station groups clearing the show include Raycom, Gannett Broadcasting, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Belo, Cox and Clear Channel."

      9. Benson, Lorri Antosz (2001-12-28). "Baisden's Talk or Walk canceled before Christmas". Mansfield News Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "The holidays are not so happy for Michael Baisden, host of this season's first daytime talk casualty, Talk or Walk."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:38, 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 redirect to Family Guy#Books. History is under the redirect if someone wants to perform the selective merge. Star Mississippi 01:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy: Brian's Guide to Booze, Broads, and the Lost Art of Being a Man[edit]

Family Guy: Brian's Guide to Booze, Broads, and the Lost Art of Being a Man (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 cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this book. The show is notable, the author is also notable, but notability is not inhereited, the book is not notable. -- Mike 🗩 19:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and redirect to Family_Guy#Books. All I could find was a brief mention of the book in relation to the show itself - what we need is coverage of this book to establish how it's independently notable outside of the show and character/creator. To be honest, stuff like this is often fairly similar to ephemera. It's not meant to be disposable, but at the same time it was meant to be a gag book with little long term impact or value on the show. The publisher isn't even printing it anymore. I'd go so far as to say that the articles for Family Guy: Stewie's Guide to World Domination and Family Guy: Peter Griffin's Guide to the Holidays could be selectively merged and redirected as well. Family Guy: It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One already redirects there. It's honestly pretty rare that a piece of merch is notable enough for its own article. Even the Star Trek and Star Wars novels rarely get enough coverage for standalone novels, nor do the Alien novels, and those are franchises where the novels are a pretty well known and major part of the franchise. The books are far less so for the Family Guy franchise and these just didn't get any attention from places Wikipedia would see as reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect echoing ReaderofthePack. No lasting impact, obvious redirect target - so no need for this standalone. -- asilvering (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per the other two nominations. Pahiy (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per above - no reviews, no impact, and nothing to merge. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agreed with common consensus. The book doesn’t have a lot of discussion on the own self. Best approach is to redirect to the parent page and add a paragraph on how this book was published. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:54, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Fraser[edit]

Cameron Fraser (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)

Semi-professional footballer with no claim to notability. Searched in a few places but found nothing better than some trivial match report mentions in Fife Today. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - couldn't find any reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 00:48, 25 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy genealogy[edit]

Fantasy genealogy (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 a coherent topic, combining what appears to be a User-generated WP:DICDEF with an arbitrary listing of examples that basically amount to 'anything genealogical and not true'.

It begins by defining the term, but for this it cites an entire book without page number, that as far as I can tell from Google Books snippets does not give any such definition or even include the term in its text (it does once refer to "genealogical fantasies" without a specific definitition distinct from those of the two words being used consecutively). The second paragraph seems to be an entirely editor-generated, unfocussed, description of some of the instances where such genealogies arise, but ignoring entire categories that are then included in the list of examples that follows. Finally we have arbitrarily-selected examples of untrue genealogies that combines everything from the sociopolitically-motivated medieval monarchical origin legends, to modern genealogical fraudsters making things up to bilk clients, to honest mistakes and exaggerations, to the relationships created by fiction authors to connect people in their fictional worlds. These are each distinct phenomena, only sharing the characteristics of being genealogical and not being true.

The citations are mostly to self-published or wiki material, with only three seemingly-reliable sources cited, of which two fail verification and the third doesn't refer to the example it is supporting as a 'fantasy genealogy'.

That some genealogies incorporate untrue information for a range of reasons is not something that needs a Wikipedia page to explain, any more than 'mathematical errors', or 'broken tools', and even if it did, this would not be that page. Agricolae (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Agricolae (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom's description as "not a coherent topic". The first example given is Queen Elizabeth II, about whom the article says, "Chroniclers of Germanic peoples traced the ancestry of their kings back to the god Wōden (Odin). If such descents were true, Queen Elizabeth II would be a descendant of Woden, via the kings of Wessex." However, the cited source ([4]) does not mention Elizabeth II in connection with Odin. This seems to be original research, as Elizabeth II may be descended from the kings of Wessex, while medieval writers may have claimed that the kings of Wessex were descended from Odin, that does not mean that anyone actually claims that Elizabeth is descended from Odin. The article later says, "Fraudulent genealogies are created through honest mistakes, exaggerations, and deceit." How could a fraudulent genealogy be created from honest mistakes? An incorrect genealogy, yes, but not a truly fraudulent one. The article also mentions fictional genealogies from the fantasy works of J. R. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling, and George R. R. Martin, but has nothing substantive to say about them except that, indeed, such genealogies were created in connection with the relevant novels. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a real topic. It is quite common for ancient genealogies to have elements in them that are ancient fabrications. This applies to all the Anglo-Saxon royal dynasties. These make the earliest known ancestor a son of a god, often Woden. In the same way some Welsh genealogies have purported links to Roman Emperors (such as Magnus Maximus) or to earlier emperors. One traces the genealogy back to a cousin of Jesus Christ. It is a well known phenomenon that links will be fabricated by genealogical historians to make the subject appear more important. This is a variety of myth. Mythical genealogies might be a more appropriate title, which would require modern fiction (Middle Earth, Harry Potter, etc.) to be purged (or split off) the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a well known phenomenon. As is the issue of fraud in genealogy, and error in genealogy, and exaggeration in genealogy, and genealogies of fictional families. For that metter the type of 'mythical' genealogies you are describing also exists in numerous flavors, e.g. linking to gods, prophets or figures from antiquity; de novo dynasties linking to the prior ruling families; political genealogies created to portray new unrelated allies as kinsmen; pedigrees full of eponymous ancestors of trabes and ethnicities to show that the people are really all one blood, etc.). The problem with this page is not that genealogies that are not reflect historical reality don't exist. It is that it doesn't all belong together under the banner 'fantasy genealogy', and the material provided on any one topic that is currently on this page is of such poor quality that any more focussed article woulld need to start from scratch anyhow (and not under this namespace, which is indeed used by some genealogists, but only in a non-specific manner to express that a genealogy under consideration is bull$#!t in a more polite manner - it has no specific definition beyond 'nonsense' of one form or another). Agricolae (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't make sense to combine two topics: the genealogies of fictional characters from novels, with the claimed descents of certain princes from various gods. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might be notable enough to warrant a mention somewhere else (and often are on the examples previously mentioned), but the article itself is wanting, and without much in the way of substance having been added, deletion seems the most reasonable course of action. Not to mention that the "Examples" seem to be a mess between fraudulent genealogies and fictional genealogies. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is really two distinct topics: family trees in the fantasy genre, and mythic origins of royalty. In effect, it is original research. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 26 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) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Extreme[edit]

The Most Extreme (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)

Despite the show's length I was unable to find anything but press releases and TV Guide listings. Current sources in the article are completely irrelevant to the show. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Dr. Remote / 'Most Extreme' Leaves Viewers Hungry for More Bizarre Factoids". The Press of Atlantic City. 2003-01-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The review notes: "Dr. Remote's Comments: "Extreme" is the most overused buzzword of the past several years, and this show's title feels like a forced attempt to be cool. But the show itself is very cool, especially for youngsters and adults who like learning bizarre facts about the animal kingdom. ... Look at it this way: "The Most Extreme" gives great, tantalizing tidbits about the lives of basilisk lizards and Tasmanian devils. In its larger purpose, the show should send children and adults to the library and Internet, where they can spend hours learning even more."

    2. Stasi, Linda (2002-07-05). "Quick Quiz: The Fastest Animal on Earth Is... ... Big Hint: Not Him". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The review notes: "To keep the audience interested, "Extreme" goes for the cheap countdown trick - from the 10th fastest to the fastest animal. I hate the cheap countdown trick - mostly because I fall for it every time. ... The speed episode is fun, especially learning about the basilisk - a lizard that runs so fast, it walks on water. ... "The Most Extreme," is basically one part wild animal footage and one part computer animation, showing for example, an animal compared to the fastest human on earth. Upcoming episodes include extremes in "Survival" (think cockroaches), "Births" (think thousands of babies as well as gigantic babies), and "Eaten Alive," which highlights parasites on humans, and I'm definitely skipping that one."

    3. Spreier, Jeanne (2002-07-28). "Animal Planet looks at creatures who go to extremes". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The article notes: "Goofy, goofy, goofy, but kids will remain glued to the television if they chance to watch this latest episode of Animal Planet's new series, The Most Extreme. Here's the premise: The Most Extreme will show you the 10 most "something" of animals - best jumpers, best biters, best thinkers, best fighters - in this 12-episode series. Then, using lots of eye-catching computer graphics and peppy music, producers pull together an hour of video clips of various animals doing something extraordinarily well. ... OK, did anyone learn anything of value? Probably not. Was it entertaining, profanity-free and appropriate for most people in the family? Yes."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. McDonough, Kevin (2002-06-29). "'The Most Extreme' looks at strange animals". Record-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "It's a jungle out there. Wild and woolly creatures of the animal and insect variety get the celebrity treatment on "The Most Extreme" (8 p.m., Sunday) a new 13-part series on Animal Planet. As the title implies, "Most Extreme" examines peculiar and little known facts about curious critters and their incredible ability to jump, lift many times their own weight and consume vast quantities of grub. "Extreme" puts all of the animal records in human perspective. For example, if a person were given the abilities of the most "Extreme" creatures featured here, he or she would be able to jump over an 80-story building, eat 250 cheeseburgers a day and give birth to thousands of offspring. Sunday's two-hour "Extreme"-fest looks at "Jumpers" (8 p.m.) followed by "Gluttons" (9 p.m.)."

      2. Bergeron, Judy (2002-06-30). "Catch some 4th music, fireworks". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Animal Planet goes to extremes. Shows with the words "the most" in their titles are usually found on FOX or USA, but this time it's Animal Planet offering The Most Extreme. The new series breaks down the animal kingdom into categories such as jumpers and gluttons, which are the subject of the series' two-hour debut special at 7 p.m. tonight, June 30. The programs will feature top ten countdowns showing the extremes of the animal kingdom, such as a bug that lays 8,000 eggs a day for years or a feathered animal that eats more than twice its body weight in food each day."

      3. Dederer, Claire (2005-09-18). "Now on Animal Planet: Downward Dog (Literally)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "The animals' dignity is further tested by the lameness of the shows' production values. Take, for instance, "The Most Extreme." It opens with a voice-over (Animal Planet is big on voice-overs, as you might imagine): "Earth is a planet of extremes. Extreme places. Extreme animals. But some animals are more extreme than others." Every show features some new element of "extreme," which appears to be a fairly elastic term. One episode was "The Most Extreme Flirts." The show is built of the three elements most beloved of Animal Planet: the aforementioned voice-overs; the kind of seizure-inducing, pastel-against-black computer graphic extravaganzas that the Letterman show has been sending up for years; and, of course, previously existing material. For that is the true underpinning of Animal Planet: miles and miles of film from places like the BBC and Discovery Channel. Here, though, it is extruded into dementedly trumped-up dramas: "WHO will be the BIGgest flirt in the ANimal KINGdom?" (The elephant, it turns out.)"

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:37, 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 Speedy Delete. Deleted by Bbb23; non-admin closure. - AwfulReader(talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) - AwfulReader(talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The friendly type[edit]

The friendly type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
The tomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gods and monsters (moon knight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Asylum (moon knight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence any of these episodes on their own are notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to their recreation. The author, MarvelWatcher10, seems enthusiastic and genuine, but might need to be pointed to the Draft namespace or sandboxes so that their contributions aren't deleted in future. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:46, 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. Star Mississippi 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Blue (Michael Jackson song)[edit]

I'm So Blue (Michael Jackson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor sourced article claiming single release based on a very limited mention on polish and Italian radio stations. A search of news articles here finds very little independent coverage or coverage from reliable sources meaning that this doesn't pass WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure why one would think a Michael Jackson single would not meet notability just from a check of news articles. I quickly found 3 books that have an entry specifically for this song - Michael Jackson All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson FAQ. The last entry is admittedly very short and arguably not significant coverage, but the 3 sources I found within 5 minutes are probably not the only ones either, and even if these are the only ones and my last source is discounted that would still minimally meet the GNG bar of multiple sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Rlendog's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 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 keep. No support for this nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis de Pointe du Lac[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be very notable, article itself is in bad shape with a lack of referencing and a primarily in-universe biography taking up the majority of article space. I think that the character should instead be an entry in List of The Vampire Chronicles characters only. I think that it could be argued that this article is notable based on some reliable sources analyzing this character, but in its current state I do not think that the character should have their own article. I suggest merging into List of The Vampire Chronicles characters or even the article remaining but being cut down severely on the biography section and adding more analysis from reliable sources. Otherwise, right now the article looks to me like fancruft. Roniiustalk to me 17:49, 19 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 Literature. Roniiustalk to me 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Probably one of the two most notable characters in the series, and the first vampire that Rice chose to use as a focus character. We shouldn't delete the article based on the fact that it doesn't currently utilize sources that could be used to enhance the article. That's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. DonIago (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why does it not seem to be very notable? Secondary sources like this book and this article discuss the character. The fact that they are not yet worked into the article is no reason for deletion, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Based on the nomination, this should be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Afd for this character seems nonsensical.★Trekker (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Louis and Lestat are the two most important characters in Anne Rice's books. The character of Louis influenced a lot of other vampire characters. (1, 2 and there are many other books and articles about the influence of this character). It should not be deleted. Dynara23 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dynara23. A look at the sources shows that WP:SIGCOV exists, which is enough to improve the article to a state worth keeping. The article could definitely use a clean-up, but that's not what AFD is for. If we're still left with a stub of verifiable information post-clean-up, we might consider a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Daranios et cetera. /Julle (talk) 20:54, 25 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 List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. North America1000 07:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Molloy[edit]

Daniel Molloy (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)

Fictional character with an article that seems to be fancruft. Lack of notability based on a cursory search, turning up only reliable sources that do not deal with this character much or fan websites. The article in itself is in bad shape, with only one source that is not the original novels. Goes against MOS in that it describes things from an in-universe perspective. I don't think that this character deserves to have an article, and should instead be put into List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. Roniiustalk to me 17:45, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lightner[edit]

Aaron Lightner (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 about a fictional character seems like fancruft and does not seem to be notable - a search on Google Scholar only turns up a few articles regarding the author's work in general, not focused on this character. The article is almost entirely an in-universe biography. The article is also in sore shape generally, with no references supporting it and issue tags from 2010. Roniiustalk to me 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Roniius. There are no reliable independent sources PaulPachad (talk) 23:08, 25 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 List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. Star Mississippi 01:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maharet and Mekare[edit]

Maharet and Mekare (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 page, at least in its current state, seems to me to be fancruft. A cursory search for sources on both Google and Google Books turns up nothing except the novels themselves as well as fan blogs and pages, strongly indicating that this article does not meet notability guidelines. The article itself in its current state is also mostly a biography of the characters in-universe and their appearances in the books, while only including a small part about the characters outside of the books. The article also suffers from sourcing problems, seeing as the only citation given is directly to the novels that the characters originated from. Roniiustalk to me 17:30, 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. Consensus reached that the article meets WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 23:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Kathy Barnette[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kathy Barnette (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)

She lost, so this (to my mind) fails wp:notnews. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's a lot of WP:SIGCOV of Barnette; the problem is all of these are in reference to the election and may just qualify as WP:ROUTINE election coverage. The New York Times and The Independent "profiles" of her are not profiles in the sense of being a biography, but just a list of political beliefs and statements with some limited biographical information tossed-in. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The rise and fall of Barnette during this election can and should of course be covered in the prose at 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania; however, I don't see how she is standalone notable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about this 2020 profile of Barnette in Politico? : [5] Thriley (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsure, it's about her, but also about a wider issue. Thus it might be argued she is not notable, the issue that she represents (republican attitudes towards one of Colour) might be. So I am still unsure she is in fact notable. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does use her story to illustrate a wider problem, but it is still significant coverage from one of the most reputable news organizations covering American politics. This is coverage in 2020, well before her senate campaign. Thriley (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:LOSER is not policy and her notability was not contingent on her winning office. She easily surpasses the GNG with national profile articles on her since 2020 [6][7][8] along with extensive coverage spanning two congressional elections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that she's been on TV, has had political ads put out for and against her in a US Senate race, and has run for Congress (House of Representatives) shows noteworthiness.Joesom333 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts and WP:NPOL#2, she is a major local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage, e.g. national coverage includes: WSJ, NYT, CBS, NBC, NBC, Bloomberg. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Curbon7 and WP:PAGEDECIDE. These articles contribute to the notability of the election article, and do not indicate her personal notability apart from the election. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In-depth coverage from 2020, 2021 and 2022. Meets WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Barnette does meet general notability, considering the coverage she received, but she is also very close to just being notable for WP:ONEEVENT. I think there is just enough coverage pre May 2022 and pre Senate campaign that her page cannot be merged into 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, so therefore, her page gets a weak keep from me.--Physeters✉ 20:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is notable regardless of whether she won this election or not. Piratetales (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:NPOL. StonyBrook babble 22:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not pass WP:NPOL. The coverage for her is solely related to her failed campaigns. There is no coverage of her outside her two failed campaigns, and losing candidates do not get notability unless somehow their candidacy had an impact on the course of the election. This does not appear to be the case. Banana Republic (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Keep - Good references ([9] and [10]) have been put forward to demonstrate notability. --Banana Republic (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not at all sure that "losing candidates do not get notability" is valid reasoning, and my personal OR is that she clearly had an impact on the course of the primary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since WP:NPOL applies to officeholders, it does not apply to losing candidates. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It also applies to major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. But my keep was arguing WP:GNG anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, if the coverage is limited to the election, then it's not enduring and therefore WP:GNG is not met. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [11] is not about the election. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And e.g. the WSJ: Kathy Barnette Scrambles Pennsylvania GOP Senate Primary, Drawing Trump Ire, Washington Post: Trump, GOP rivals target Barnette as she threatens to upend Pa. race, Axios: GOP panics over ‘ultra-MAGA’ Pennsylvania Senate wild card, CNN: How Trump's endorsement of Oz gave Kathy Barnette an unexpected opening in Pennsylvania, New York: Can Wild-Card Kathy Barnette Win Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate Primary?, NYT: Trump criticizes Kathy Barnette as she surges in Pennsylvania’s G.O.P. Senate primary. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All those references are directly related to her campaigns. She is not notable outside of her losing campaigns. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOL includes Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage and fn 8 states, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. The references cited in this discussion include independent and in-depth coverage in multiple news feature articles, so there appears to be sufficient support for notability as a major local political figure. Beccaynr (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG. There seems to be some misunderstanding of routine election coverage not counting as SIGCOV. Routine would be "The latest polls in the Senate race show Barnette behind by X points, but Barnett is confident she will win. Anyway, the other candidates blah blah blah." A feature in the NYT is not routine. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. I agree with Indy beetle that the subject has received significant coverage that far exceeds routine campaign coverage, enough to pass the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable given in-depth coverage in multiple mainstream national and international news sources and there is absolutely not policy against notability for losing political candidates. A number of perennial candidates have pages that meet notability criteria, especially those with notably heterodox views. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fails WP:NPOL, passes GNG, largely with the Politco article that provides a certain depth and context about the subject outside of her Senate campaign. I could not find any independent, reliable sourced reviews of her book, so she does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. --Enos733 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked for that too, it would be interesting to have an opinion on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has received significant coverage. Furthermore, her candidacy was clearly an important factor in the race (even though she didn't win). Information about her helps the reader's understanding of the primary but the level of detail found in a bio article would be clutter in the main article about the primary. Keep per WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 01:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a GNG pass. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyone here continues to use GNG as sufficient. The issue is that all of this coverage is in the context of being a candidate for office. Being a candidate for office is not enough to meet the notability requirements under Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. I am in agreement that she does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The book is not particularly well-selling (even post-Senate run) and I could not find an independent review of it.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:N, WP:GNG is sufficient. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALSO OF NOTE: The result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette on April 19th was delete and redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. The result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (2nd nomination) was Speedy delete per CSD G4: the article's content was basically the same as that discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette, with the new version of the article not making any additional claims of notability. I've also salted the page to prevent this from re-occuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 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. there isn't consensus for a redirect in this discussion, but someone is welcome to create one if they so wish Star Mississippi 02:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peniuna Kaitu[edit]

Peniuna Kaitu (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) 16:26, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Sogivalu[edit]

Raj Sogivalu (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) 16:25, 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 redirect to Major League Soccer on television. ✗plicit 12:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Soccer Saturday[edit]

MLS Soccer Saturday (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 sourcing found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Major League Soccer on television - maybe there are sources out there discussing the show, maybe they all discuss MLS and briefly talk about this. Redirect is fine, and if real sourcing is found, can revisit. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Major League Soccer on television as doesn't show independent notability to pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a TV directory, so doesn't need an article on every TV show. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 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 keep. cleanup during the discussion has rendered the nom and early !votes moot as far as sourcing existing to improve it Star Mississippi 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Foley Catholic High School[edit]

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

Article reeks of promotion, boasting about the extracurriculars, academics, & other information you can gather if you pop over to Bishop Foley's website. What's the difference between reading this over the information you can gather online? Also, the (now deleted) section about the school's namesake, Bishop John Samuel Foley was paraphrased directly from the school handbook. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First, nominator has not pointed to a reason to delete. Second, I find it hard to believe that a 50+ year old school in a major US city isn't notable. If memory serves, there was quite a bit of news generated when they moved. Please note that poor sourcing and especially SCHOOLCRUFT have been rampant on Detroit area schools for years. An article being poor quality is not a reason to delete. 174.212.227.174 (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, but I clearly stated a reason. Bishop Foley is notable, but this level of school cruft is abysmal. Also, I looked, and there are no reputable sources besides that a former teacher & priest sexually abused some students. That on its own is notable, but how does it connect to the big picture?
    P.S. To be completely honest, I am slightly biased, as I'm a student at Bishop Foley. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some guy just went in and deleted all the school cruft. I would close this if I knew how. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete firstly, schools aren't inherently notable. Also, this article is promotional garbage, so better to delete it and start again if decent sourcing can be found by someone without a blatant COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 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 02:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have one source of the time:[1] The local community paper has a free online archive through its own system (I used it to do WOPR (Michigan) this year. I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed with the coverage in Detroit papers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Catholic School Rises". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. August 8, 1964. p. 4. Retrieved May 12, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No valid rationale for deletion and clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly promo and fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent sources available to establish notability. The Banner talk 11:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ORGCRIT is not a necessary condition for a not-for-profit school's notability; per WP:NSCHOOL, all a not-for-profit school needs to do for notability is to satisfy WP:GNG. And it does; I'm seeing multiple independent reliable sources that cover the school; newspapers.com returns over 1000 results for "Bishop Foley High School" when searching is restricted to publications from Michigan and about 250 results when searching for "Bishop Foley Catholic High School" when also limiting results to Michigan. I'm seeing a ton of non-trivial coverage of the school by multiple independent reliable sources, including the Detroit Free Press and the Times-Herald of Port Huron, Michigan. The coverage available through newspapers.com includes coverage of high school athletics, coverage of volunteer activities that the school performs, coverage of the school's academics, as well as coverage of scandals involving the school—the corpus of independent coverage by RS is quite thorough. To be frank, I just don't know how this wasn't considered before this school was nominated for deletion. Issues with promotionalism have been resolved through ordinary editing and the article as it is now is nowhere near WP:TNT level. The deletion policy notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Seeing as the article can reasonably be improved through ordinary editing, the deletion policy indicates that this article should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:16, 27 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. Star Mississippi 02:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Kemp[edit]

Marty Kemp (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)

There is no presumption tha the gives of state governors are notable, and the main reference at least tis unabashed pr, were she says whatever she (or her pr agenta) wants to. Her own accomplishments do not amount to notability DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

most of this is trivial, and "The governor and his wife,... have pushed..." does not say anything about her actual role DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is about her or includes her as the topic, includes biographical detail, descriptions of her political work, and her accomplishments. Beccaynr (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC) And I would otherwise update this article with more information to help better demonstrate this, but I find the current citation format unfamiliar and a barrier to quickly contributing to this article. However, I think a close review of the sources identified in this discussion shows sustained state and national coverage of her and her work that is sufficient for WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her independent work has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have stricken my previous "redirect" !vote per the comments and citations provided by TJMSmith and Beccaynr. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reference formatting is a little strange, but there is significant refrences. Craigwikiman (talk) 17:03, 25 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 16:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Sink UFO incident[edit]

Carson Sink UFO incident (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 is sourced to a mention in a book by Edward Ruppelt [13]. All other sources are UFO enthusiast web pages and books simply repeating Ruppelt and pushing the fringe POV that two Air Force Colonels could not be wrong so any conventional explanation must be ruled out. No WP:FRIND sources found to provide critique or analysis and help establish this topic as notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the other guy, but here's John L. McGinn [14]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I also found this about him, and I note that neither source mentions anything even remotely resembling a UFO incident. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV PianoDan (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sadly as I love a well-written UFO page. I know this isn't R/S but looking at Issac Koi's Top 100 UFO Cases website, the Carson Sink case isn't mentioned [15]. I went though some of my books that are my go-to when I work on UFO pages and nothing was found. Newspapers.com has no mention for any year and I used multiple search terms. Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine did not cover this story either. I did find three sentences in a book about UFO's but even that it just parroted what I've found on pro-UFO blogs and it wasn't even enough to give it a full paragraph in the book. The lack of attention to the Carson Sink UFO incident shows that this is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not finding anything to add to existing sources, which seem insufficient. Artw (talk)
  • Delete Regretfully can't find any references beyond the sources cited here. AtFirstLight (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LuckyLouie and Sgerbic reasons. --mikeu talk 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources are insufficient. Does not meet notability. Craigwikiman (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, article is overreliant on dicey sources, some of which seem to be citogenesis. Carguychris (talk) 21:53, 25 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, but I will draftify as there is reasonable change that this will become notable within draftification's window. If it doesn't happen, it can be solved via G13. Star Mississippi 02:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games[edit]

Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity 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. Currently unsure if event will even happen. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is scheduled multi-event games will begin at 10 August. 'Currently unsure if event will even happen.' Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Sportsfan 1234 it is ur wrong opinion about games. 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games will begin 9 August 2022 in Turkey. İt is offcial web cite: http://www.konya2021.com/default.aspx . All detailed information have in this web cite. And it is not reason for future event. A bunch of empty tables. Nice. Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Iskandar323[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events. There is consensus to not keep this content and this article. There is no consensus about whether to delete or redirect (and where to) the page. I'm implementing a redirection to the main article as the least restrictive and probably most consensual outcome. People can continue to discuss about whether to delete or retarget the redirect. Sandstein 08:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 vaccine side effects[edit]

COVID-19 vaccine side effects (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 this for deletion based on WP:NPOVFACT and WP:NOPAGE. Let me state at the top that the question is not whether Wikipedia should provide information about adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Obviously, we should! The question is also not whether there exist sufficient sources to make a case for notability. There is a ton of coverage of nearly every aspect of the vaccine such that we could spin out a dozen more subtopics into their own article. This deletion discussion is about WP:NOPAGE and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:NPOVFACT). It's about whether this subject should be spun out from the main article. With all of the COVID-19 mis/disinformation going around regarding supposed side effects, it does not seem in the spirit of our policies and best practices to pull side effects out for special coverage.

Alexbrn redirected it yesterday, but the creator restored it. The creator seems to have some problems with WP:MEDRS which aren't worth getting into here except insofar as e.g. this article has a whole section on Tinnitus where the only MEDRS-compliant source has nothing to do with vaccines. I mention this not because deletion hinges on the current state of the article, but as a secondary point illustrating an aspect of the NPOV issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Medicine. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't encyclopedic as it's currently written and is completely WP:OR and WP:FRINGE nonsense. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do wonder if the nominator read the Tinnitus section and the cited sources properly. The reason the MEDRS in that section doesn't mention vaccines is because sources are unsure whether the condition is caused by the vaccine or the COVID-19 disease itself. I myself have had tinnitus since my second vaccination, yet the sources linking it to vaccines do so only with Pfizer and Moderna, and I received AstraZeneca. Until we have scientific studies linking tinnitus to one or more vaccines, the MEDRS linking it to the disease seemed like a WP:BALANCE requirement to me, and that's why I added it. CutePeach (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to hear about your tinnitus. I know several people affected by it (unrelated to vaccines/covid), and know it can be really miserable sometimes. The thing is, until we have scientific studies linking tinnitus to one or more vaccines (or, preferably, reviews of said studies), we just shouldn't be including it. We're not trying to be an exhaustive resource of all possible medical information about covid -- we're trying to summarize the best, most reliable parts of the literature. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: thank you for your sympathy, but I would much prefer an apology and your participation in the VPP thread about MEDRS over-reach. First you accused me there of writing this article with a POV, then you presented here that the MEDRS I cited in the Tinnitus section was WP:SYNTH, and now you're telling me that we shouldn't include it without a review article without even checking if one exists (what's this?). This discussion only demonstrates the need to rein in MEDRS and sanction those who willingly misapply it. CutePeach (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It did look like some POV editing, yes. Maybe I'm wrong, but even below, after so many people have explained that biomedical claims (like vaccine side effects) should be supported by MEDRS, you're still saying I will try adding [side effects] to the vaccine page citing the NEWSORG and see if anyone tries claiming there are any MEDRS violations there. Maybe it's a learning curve and I/we should have more patience -- that would probably be fair. I certainly don't mean to be insulting, but if you detect that some editors get a little short about this stuff and don't provide a lot of room to make mistakes and learn the ins-and-outs of what's expected regarding biomedical content, you'd be right. People have been trying to twist (or ignore) MEDRS to push fringe (or just as-yet insufficiently studied!) vaccine [dis/mis/proto?-information] for years now. Maybe that's not what you were trying to do. With most of Wikipedia, there's no rush; with this stuff, people actually make medical decisions based on what our articles say.
I didn't claim the tinnitus section was WP:SYNTH, though, and didn't mention it on the other page. The only thing I've said about it is this article has a whole section on Tinnitus where the only MEDRS-compliant source has nothing to do with vaccines. I mentioned the one source that does meet MEDRS not because no others exist or because I think you were synthesizing, but to advise others who may look at the section and think it's a mix of good/bad sources about tinnitus as a side effect of COVID-19 vaccines, when it is not (or was not at the time). Whether or not a review exists doesn't change that we shouldn't include it without a review article. I disagree with the conclusion that This discussion only demonstrates the need to rein in MEDRS, but that's not to say some people apply it too broadly. Applying it to vaccine side effects is one specific application of MEDRS where you're not going to find a wide array of perspectives, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I have shown you that there is MEDRS backing up what the non-MEDRS reported, so it shouldn't look POV editing to you anymore, and I ask that you to strike your comments above and in the VPP. The quote you highlighted shows you making a WP:SYNTH argument about the tinnitus claim, but as I've explained, there are RS reporting it as a vaccine side effect - which I contextualized with that MEDRS saying it might be a long lasting effect of the disease itself. If people are actually making medical decisions based on what our articles say, then we should be able to mention claims made in non-MEDRS, and contextualize them properly with MEDRS, and doing so does not violate MEDRS. If the claims are written in a contentious way, then it may be argued that they, too, should be sourced to MEDRS. These claims, however, are not so contentious, as the RS quoted Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist, who simply called for more research into it, and there is a new review article covering causal links. I have added it to the vaccine article, and if there are any issues with the way it is written, then hopefully we can resolve it in the TP there. CutePeach (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form - I think it is certainly possible for WP to have such an article that rigorously uses WP:MEDRS suitable sources and does not engage in the sort of regurgitating speculation it currently does, which I agree infringes on WP:FRINGE and possibly WP:OR. If done carefully, I don't see that it is more of a POV fork than COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy could be, if not carefully written, as an example. At present, the only section that seems suitably referenced is on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, which has it's own article (the lead of which has been copied into the article in question apparently without attribution). |→ Spaully ~talk~  15:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and redirect Delete Massive WP:MEDRS errors. No reason to stand as a separate article from the vaccine articles. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep We have an article on Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination, which is just one of several reported COVID-19 vaccine side effects. The subject is clearly WP:NOTABLE by the sheer number of RS covering it significantly, including the WHO joint statement the WHO and ICMRA put out just yesterday [16]. As the statement says, the ​​global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented level of public interest in vaccines focusing on the ​​the development of vaccines and their regulatory review and safety monitoring, that have led to some people to express concerns about getting vaccinated, delay getting vaccinated or even be strongly opposed to vaccination. It is only prudent to cover these concerns, and perhaps rename the article to COVID-19 vaccine safety, but deleting it would be a classic case of WP:POVDELETION. Since AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, Praxidicae and Spaully's WP:OR or WP:FRINGE concerns can be addressed and resolved in the article TP. CutePeach (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know that it's "clearly WP:NOTABLE", because WP:NOTABLE says that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." It is not enough to have "the sheer number of RS covering it significantly"; one must additionally have agreement from editors that it's best to handle this on a separate, stand-alone page.
    Why do you believe that this information needs to be on a separate, stand-alone page instead of being at COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing:, I created this article to go into detail that might be WP:UNDUE in the vaccine article, but I am changing my !vote here and will work on the vaccine page. The prelude to this AfD was a VPP discussion about MEDRS [17], where I was accused of writing this article with a POV [18], claiming also that the tinnitus section is WP:SYNTH, when really a MEDRS was added to WP:BALANCE a NEWSORG report. I don't myself believe tinnitus is a side effect of COVID-19 as I received the AZ vaccine, though there are qualified experts who say it needs to be researched, and I don't see why that needs to be sourced to a MEDRS, or a review article in particular. I will try adding it to the vaccine page citing the NEWSORG and see if anyone tries claiming there are any MEDRS violations there. CutePeach (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the best approach.
The reason that we love a good review article is because it helps us figure out what's important enough to mention. A long list of "somebody claimed this, therefore we should investigate this" isn't the goal.
This is going to be long, but I can't think of a better way to explain it. Forget about vaccines for a moment. Here is a partial list of what I've heard people claim were the causes of Breast cancer:
  • Having kids
  • Not having kids
  • Having too many kids
  • Using antiperspirant (I don't think she really believed this, but this story was making the rounds back then, and newly diagnosed people grasp at anything)
  • Wearing a bra
  • Not wearing a bra
  • Eating the wrong things (too much sugar/carbs, too much protein, not enough vegetable juice)
  • Losing too much blood in an accident
  • Weak immune system
  • Not being a kind enough person (this came from an extraordinarily kind woman)
  • Divine punishment (for getting divorced, if memory serves; she survived)
  • Divine blessing (for religious reasons, she preferred dying of cancer to either divorcing her husband or continuing to live with his abuse; she died)
  • Family history
Do you know what I haven't ever heard any woman claim about her breast cancer? Drinking alcohol (~15% of breast cancer cases), being overweight or obese (~10% of breast cancer cases), and being an older woman (biggest cause of all).
Almost all of these claims except the religious ones have been researched: there is an optimal (large) number of kids to prevent breast cancer; antiperspirant, bras, physical injuries, and attitude/personality are irrelevant; diet matters (but primarily in the "don't eat too much" sense and not nearly as much as not drinking alcohol); and a big family history is a very big deal, but no family history guarantees nothing.
IMO Wikipedia should not have an indiscriminate list of "someone claimed this once" content, or even a list of "all the things that someone once claimed and that somebody else mentioned in the news". IMO Wikipedia should instead have the broad outlines. In the case of breast cancer, that means writing that there isn't much that an individual woman can realistically do to prevent breast cancer, beyond not drinking alcohol and trying to maintain a basic level of health/fitness. This is the viewpoint that you will get if you look for a review article or a book. It is not the view you will get if you try to chase down stories about individuals who might or might not have gotten The advantage of these bigger, better sources is that they can sum up all the little "stories" and then we can write an actual encyclopedia article that presents the big picture without a bunch of trivia.
Okay, back on track:
What Wikipedia needs for vaccines is what approximately it needs about the causes of breast cancer. It needs statements of larger, generally accepted effects, along with explanations that place that information in proper context (e.g., this is common but mild; this is rare but captured the public's imagination during the pandemic; this is typical of any vaccine, etc.), and not a list of things that somebody once claimed, things that somebody might want to research some day, or even a complete list of things that are both scientifically possible and mentioned more than once in the news. What we really need is an encyclopedia article, not a laundry list of all verifiable allegations. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. "Summary" means that you don't say as much as you could, and "accepted" means that you don't include speculative claims (like "someone claimed this and someone else said it should be research"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing:, thanks for the advice. You are being much more courteous than Alexbrn who just disparaged my WP:MEDRSNOT essay to Jayron32 [19], as if the snowclose of this AFD somehow supports their position on MEDRS, and that I am making a WP:POINT. I agree with you that we shouldn't list side effects in an indiscriminate fashion, and that's why I didn't include the brewing controversy around the mRNA-LNP linked inflammation [20] [21] [22], but the Tinnitus linked side effect is in fact covered by review articles [23] [24]. As such, all side-effects listed in this article are covered by MEDRS, and I actually copied most of them from the vaccine article, so the WP:BLAR !votes here and are really not justified.
At the heart of the MEDRS/MEDRSNOT debate is WP:RECENTISM, and whether INCLUSIONIST editors like myself should be allowed to cite NEWSORG reports on BMI subjects with attribution, and BALANCE them appropriately while waiting on MEDRS for factual statements. The possible Tinnitis linked side effect citing NBC and MedPageToday quotes Mayo Clinic vaccinologist Gregory Poland who simply called for more research into it, yet I keep on hearing that MEDRS restricts us from including his view. Even without the review articles I showed you, do you really think that quoting this expert calling for research into this possible side effect is so bad, or a violation of MEDRS? And even if you deem it as UNDUE, do you see any justification for the nasty vitriol directed against me here and the bilious temperament on VPP?
Even Bakkster Man, who previously reported me at WP:AE for citing an RS that in turn cites a preprint, purportedly in violation of WP:PREPRINT, but which resulted in a TBAN on COVID-19 origins for me anyway - is accusing me below of WP:GAMING for juxtaposing the NEWSORG piece with a MEDRS paper that I BALANCED it with. Common sense dictates that WP:PARITY applies to subjects high up on the WP:FRINGE spectrum, and not lower down on subjects where there is uncertainty, like Tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side effect, and the topic I'm banned from editing and discussing. Only editors with a very strong POV, and the air of an WP:UNBLOCKABLE can get away with perverting WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS with impunity, and this has to stop. I am now going to file a WP:CR and post it on WP:AN to make sure that this AFD doesn't interfere further with the VPP discussion on the proper application of MEDRS. Please join us in the discussion there. CutePeach (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be super-specific (e.g., any exact edits that have already been made). The scenarios run like this:
  • This vaccine is safe and effective,[secondary sources] but someone said it might not be.[primary news source]
  • This vaccine is safe and effective,[secondary sources] but there is a side effect.[secondary sources]
In both cases, all of that is verifiable, but the first uses a primary source to debunk the secondary sources, which is not okay. That's not BALANCE; that's a GEVAL violation. BALANCE says when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. A newspaper article is never "equal in prominence" to a peer-reviewed review article where biomedical information is concerned. Using primary sources to debunk secondary sources is also a clear and direct violation of WP:MEDPRI. Read the very first sentence in that section.
The second scenario is possible, but it depends on the specifics – the exact wording that you're putting into the article, and the exact claims that the source makes, whether the cited source represents the mainstream medical viewpoint, etc. There is a great deal of difference between a group of prominent researchers publishing a review article in a reputable journal that says "Based on excellent scientific data, we have conclusively determined there is a side effect" and a crackpot paying a predatory journal to say "Nobody I've contacted agrees with me, and the good journals are all part of the conspiracy to suppress this information, but I still feel in my gut that this side effect exists". It is likely that the secondary sources you are looking at fall somewhere in between these two extremes, but if editors disagree with what you write, a sensible approach is to ask them whether they object to using the source at all (e.g., did you accidentally cite a predatory journal? There are so many that it's hard to keep up with them all), or if they think it's possible to use it but wasn't presented fairly and accurately. Sometimes, especially if people haven't yet run completely out of patience with you yet, they can be remarkably helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: please can we discuss the specifics of the alleged MEDRS violation in this AFD? Some people like Colin and Alexbrn are pointing to this AFD in VPP that I promote "conspiracy theories" as an "anti-MEDRS" editor, when we have WHO and review article sources on the tinnitus side effect. There is no question that the vaccine is safe, and that all side effects are extremely rare, and that is not in the scope of this discussion. What you asked me above is why I think the side effects needs a standalone article when they can be added to COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events [25], and I answered that I will try adding information there [26], to which you replied that it must have a review article as a source [27], to which I replied saying we have that [28]. I'm also not sure if you're saying my inclusion of Gregory Poland's viewpoint violates WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, or how the secondary sources I added [29] [30] violate WP:MEDPRI. The journal cited is Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences [31], cited 95 times in Wikipedia, and the review article I mentioned above was published by ​​Annals of medicine and surgery, which is cited 21 times in Wikipedia, and neither of them are predatory [32]. I agree that adding Poland's call for further research may be a ​​WP:PRIMARYNEWS concern if we are adding the tinnitus information to the vaccine article, if there is a consensus to only describe the tinnitus side-effect in a more summarized form. CutePeach (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of Further research is needed? The mere fact that someone calls for further research is unimportant. Almost every researcher in the world is strongly in favor of more funding for their area of research. Reporting that someone said FRIN at the end of a paper is like reporting that a charity asked for donations at the end of their press release. Why should a Wikipedia article include that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: yes, I am aware of FRIN and I understand your WP:UNDUE argument, but do you remember where I told you - directly above - that the purpose of this article was to go into more detail than the COVID-19 vaccine article? Any further discussion on this should go on the COVID-19 vaccine TP. CutePeach (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FRIN isn't "further detail". It's "further vagueness". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing:, do you remember the part where I told you that this FRIN has been corroborated by MEDORG and MEDRS? I think we've come full circle now. CutePeach (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all FRIN statements come from researchers and organizations that hope to benefit from that further funding. The fact that potential beneficiaries of further research funding are encouraging the US government (=one of the biggest funders of medical research in the world) to stump up more funding for their personal area of research is unimportant. Mentioning this in any article is about as important as saying that most children would like more candy, or that most workers would like bigger paychecks.
If you are interested in the general subject, what's DUE is when someone says that further research is not needed, or that further research should prioritize X over Y. "Well, we don't know the answer to all of your questions yet, so I need to be paid to do some more research" is not important or relevant. Look for statements like "We need less epidemiology research and more translational research" or "We aren't ready to do cure-oriented research, because we still don't know what the epidemiology looks like". Ignore statements like "Further research is needed in my area". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it's fluff and should not be written in Wikipedia article - as MOS:MED says. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, as a point of fact, side effects are not rare. Almost everyone getting a COVID vaccine will get side effects. The common side effects are temporary and manageable at home: soreness, elevated temperature, malaise, headache, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of it this way, the WP:DUE issues are pretty clear. The article spends (by my count) 4 sentences on the common mild side effects, and almost the entire remainder discusses the rare severe side effects. None of the mild side effects are noted in the By symptom section, where details of the side effects you listed (Is fever or headache more common? How do side-effects vary by dose/booster? Are mild side effects being cited as a cause of vaccine hesitancy?) might have changed my vote. At a minimum, the article is misnamed, as it only discusses Serious adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines in any detail. Which can be reasonably interpreted (as has been done by many here) as a POV-fork (the POV being 'COVID-19 vaccines have significant severe side effects', key word being significant). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 vaccines have significant severe side effects, key word being significant) No Bakkster Man, I'm really not seeing that. The article emphasizes the rarity of severe side effects overall, and differentiates between common and severe side effects in the lead sentence, explaining that the mild ones usually subside within a week or two. There is obviously much more interest in possible severe side effects in RS and I added the "FRIN" about tinnitus before the latest review articles even came out, and they did not give more weight to the idea than the disease-associated hypothesis​​. Personally, I think tinnitus is more likely to be linked to the disease itself, but there could be some link with vaccines too, and even the WHO source mentions it, based on the EMA's PRAC assessment of JNJ vaccine trials. I think the hostility from you and Colin here make for excellent diffs to present in an ARBCOM case requesting to rein in the persistent abuse of MEDRS and FRINGE guidelines. There were at least two editors in the FRINGE/N post about this AFD who said they don't see the POV in this supposed POVFORK [33], so I ask that you leave aside that rhetoric when we get around to expanding COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events and creating COVID-19 vaccine safety. As for what Colin says directly below, I said nothing about bioweapons WRT COVID-19 origins, and if I have to file an ARCA to clarify that for the record, I absolutely will. CutePeach (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The US government maintains the claim that the WIV was doing bioweapons research, which was perhaps for defensive purposes, but we can't know. Perhaps we will never know." CutePeach 6th June 2021. Not "nothing"? -- Colin°Talk 13:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: that diff does not show me "promoting conspiracy theories", so your accusation is a personal attack, to which I am allowed to respond. Here are the diffs [34] [35] [36] [37] [​​https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19&diff=prev&oldid=1031339909] where I provided sources describing a US government demarche making those allegations, and the only POV I expressed was that we can't know, and likely never will know if they are true. The way some editors conflate allegations with facts and then confound editor POV with source POV is a persistent problem on Wikipedia, and WP:MEDRSNOT advises to simply use attribution to prevent or resolve these pointless disputes. If you look at the last two diffs, it was very clear what I was, and not, suggesting. I have no time to appeal my TBAN to ARBCOM, but I do think it is important they hear a case about the persistent abuse of MEDRS and FRINGE. CutePeach (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:UNDUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. If the article is about all side effects, then undue weight has clearly been given to five specific rare side effects above the common ones. Hence why I mention the issue of the article title not making clear that the article is written exclusively about the severe adverse events.
If you disagree that strongly to threaten ARBCOM, please do so. If not, please strike the threat. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakkster Man: I will be requesting an ARBCOM case, and between now and then, I think you should strike your WP:GAMING accusation below. The NBC article quoting Dr Poland may very well be a ​​WP:PRIMARYNEWS source, but I didnt use MEDRS to debunk, contradict, or counter MEDRS, of which three came out only later [38] [39] [40]. If you look at the WHO source in the Hearing loss section, it says clearly that a MEDORG made is a Tinnitus link with at least one vaccine. This is an area of scientific uncertainty, and if we want to cover the topic at all, we need to have a better understanding of how WP:MEDRS applies, and obviously we're not going to get that here or on the VPP. CutePeach (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of get the impression that the envisioned subject is closer to "List of possible side effects that have been mentioned in the popular press" than a balanced, reality-focsed article about actual side effects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree. These all seem to be real reports of adverse effects with some level of scientific/medical scrutiny given. Just presented with far too much undue weight, as if they're the most notable side effects, rather than spending most of the time on the most common symptoms soreness, redness, rash, and inflammation at the injection site... fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pain), and arthralgia (joint pain). The exception being embolisms, which have their own deserved article for notability, given the Janssen suspension. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that pointed to this AFD to suggest CutePeach promotes conspiracy theories. Why would I need to do that when they spent months doing just that wrt the origin of Covid and gain of function research and bioweapons, government cover ups, and so on. -- Colin°Talk 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note here that the Further Research Is Needed trope is often used by fringeists to attempt undermine perfectly good conclusions. I do believe that this plea by scientists when they write would be better phrased - Please Do Not Cut Off My Research Funding Thank You Very Much. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 01:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CutePeach is indefinitely topic banned from the Origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. If the disruption moves to another sub-topic of COVID-19, this topic ban can be extended to the full topic area by any univolved administrator. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291 Does anyone know if this is still in effect? Note the second part of the Arbitration enforcement ruling. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that CutePeach was reminded of the ban here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive343#Requesting_admin_close_of_COVID-19_vaccine_side_effects_AFD — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TBAN hasn't been lifted to my knowledge. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the relevant process involves posting a note at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement with a request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the vaccine article. I'm not qualified to say if the contents are good enough or not. I have read enough to know that COVID-19 vaccine misinformation had thrived because pro-science public health people don't talk about the actual (rare) side effects and have sometimes gone for simple narratives (vaccines are perfect, no size effects kind of simplicity). Content about side effects, if accurate, is a good thing. I therefore think a redirect is better than a delete. CT55555 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree we should have a redirect. I'd just argue that, given the current content of the article, a "delete and redirect" would be preferable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Without having properly assessed the article, I take your comments at face value and find that agreeable. CT55555 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (/delete). Currently this topic is handled at COVID-19 vaccine where it fits well per WP:NOPAGE. If the "Adverse events" section there becomes big enough then a consensus to WP:SPLIT may form in the usual way. Even then, that is unlikely since the adverse events differ per vaccine type. There is no need to have a standalone article, and it is particularly unfortunate the current version is a WP:POINT-making exercise about using unreliable sources for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and Redirect back to the vaccine article. I agree that a properly contextualized standalone article is possible, but this is not that, and for the time being we have much better information, presented with better context, back at the original article. PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and redirect - looks very much like a NPOV-violation fork to evade MEDRS limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, and redirect if necessary. A discussion of side effects of the various COVID vaccines should certainly exist in Wikipedia. (And adverse effects are already presented in the articles on various vaccines.)
    I am less persuaded that a 'laundry list' or grab bag of symptoms and effects for multiple different pharmaceutical products is entirely helpful.
    I am completely unpersuaded that even if such a list could be of benefit, that this version of it would serve as a good base, for reasons already discussed above.
    The way that the {{main}} template is incorrectly used to link to tinnitus and viral cardiomyopathy suggests, at best, an unclear vision for how this article would or could be integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and redirect for most of the reasons above regarding weak sourcing for the contents that doesn't already have a standalone article (POVFORK, POINTy, and NOPAGE particularly). Page creator's only edit to the COVID-19 vaccine article is this one adding a reference to the fork (rather than attempting to improve the main article section, which has a section tag to expand it). The section on Tinnitus seems indicative of my concern: non-MEDRS sources saying "people speculate that the vaccine might cause Tinnitus", followed by a MEDRS systemic review and meta-analysis saying "COVID-19 has a correlation with Tinnitus, at an ER of 4.5%, CIs: 0.012–0.153". Much of the data comes from Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (and similar) reports, without the necessary context that raw submitted data is not reliable (saying The US CDC acknowledged reports of tinnitus..., potentially implying that the 'other reports' in MEDRS sources are less reliable, even as the cited source indicates rates of neurological adverse events were far higher following SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination). It comes across as WP:GAMING, using the MEDRS source as cover for the inappropriate BMI claim about the vaccine. A similar GAMING-adjacent argument is made above, paraphrased: "embolisms have their own article with strong sourcing, so this one should exist for other conditions with only weak sourcing". Bakkster Man (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Fork. (Throwing away the current content and moving the content from COVID-19_vaccine#Adverse_events to this article would also be an acceptable solution.) ApLundell (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that the topic that the reader is really interested in while reader this article is Safety of the COVID vaccine and so this article is inclined to mislead a reader. Safety of the COVID vaccine is a natural part of the COVID-19 vaccine page. With that said, I can perhaps see an argument for an article on Controversy surrounding the COVID vaccine that looks at things from a more sociological / current affairs angle because this material might swamp the COVID-19 vaccine... but considering that this section is quite short in the article, I don't see that this is an issue. Do we think that thinking about "what the reader is likely to actually want" is a valid mode of argument. I am aware that at times this can almost become paternalistic and might be better handled with prominent "See also's" early on in the page. Kind of "if you actually want the facts about the safety go here, otherwise read on". Talpedia (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm oversimplifying to emphasise my point, but...I don't think we should be looking at it through the lens of what the reader might want as I expect that is often something polarised like "this vaccine is perfect, no side effects at all" or "this vaccine is the work of the devil" I don't think we should help people looking for over simple answers, and we should present issues as complex as they are, as clearly as we can. CT55555 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that that effect is real, I suppose I view this as being fixed by "what the reader is trying to find plus important context". The issue is if we *aren't* optimizing for what the reader is trying to find, might we be preventing the reader from asking legitimate questions and trying to influence what they are allowed to ask? Perhaps too philosophical a question. But in medical literature I often see things like "what are the potential side effects" turned into "which of the side effects can be blamed on patients" for example. I suspect, as ever, the answer will be "if in doubt follow the literature" Talpedia (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To make your discussion more concrete, look at WP:NOPAGE. That's really what this is about: separate page or combined? A strong argument for combination is this consideration: Does other information provide needed context? Having a list of side effects without talking about the benefits is unlike anything else we do in medicine. It's always a risk-benefit discussion, so keeping the risks separate from the benefits hurts both discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it all comes down to context, which sort of assumes why someone is likely to be reading a page. This risks descending off topic but COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy does just list all of the non existent side effects while ignoring the actual adverse events. So I would say only showing one side of the risk benefit trade off is quite standard ("all of these things are lies, so it must be safe right?") . But yeah, I'm pro redirect on this one, but might be in favour of page along the lines of Controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccine from a more sociological angle should someone have the desire to make one Talpedia (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank and Redirect. I tried to fix the glaring omissions and add balance in the hearing loss section but that leaves much of the text in need of a rewrite. It would be preferable to expand the section of the vaccine article. --mikeu talk 22:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the diff [41] --mikeu talk 04:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • blank and redirect per mikeu--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)
@Ozzie10aaaa: please can you check this review article on Tinnitus as a COVID-19 vaccine side effect [42] and reconsider your WP:BLAR !vote. Instead of deleting this content, we could be moving it to the COVID-19 vaccine article as others suggest. CutePeach (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sure[43] Ill read it during the weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, with n=4, this review seems focused on identifying the causal mechanism of the side-effect, rather than comparative odds ratios. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Tinnitus review referred to in this discussion treats VAERS reports as if Correlation equals Causation. To me, that automatically disqualifies it from being acceptable. The paltry acknowledgement of this in the conclusions of that review is simply not enough. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 01:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Same with the "2 out of 4 patients had glaucoma, so it's a risk factor". It's just plain underpowered. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COVID vaccines are different in their mechanisms of action and thus in their adverse effect profiles. Individual adverse effect profiles are probably best placed on the pages of individual vaccines. COVID vaccines as such are not a pharmacologically homogenous class the way we can talk about e.g. the adverse effects of COX inhibitors (which are all quite similar). Phrasing the article like this invites WP:FRINGE content and endless (and pointless) debate. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep This could be developed into a better article if a clear distinction is made between misinformation and actual side effects. But that might be hard to do. X-Editor (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. The topic may prove out to be needed, someday, but split is premature. And even if it wasn't, this version is hopelessly hobbled by poor sourcing and would be a candidate for WP:TNT. - MrOllie (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear POV fork. If anything in it is adequately sourced (and would not be undue) it could perhaps be merged into the relevant section of the main article. Brunton (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events. It's adequately covered under that article; no need for a split. --Jayron32 11:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - given how different many of the vaccines are from each other, a generic article has little meaning (not to mention other issues that have been raised). Any side-effects should be discussed in the article for a particular vaccines - which I note is already the case in the lead of Novavax COVID-19 vaccine, for example. Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse events.Craigwikiman (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Not sure if it's been mentioned here, but if not, this AfD was linked to from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine on the 19th. jp×g 23:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd take that as a good thing. That's an unbiased way to get more eyes on this AfD discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alexbrn, WAID and many other experienced editors. The highlighting of affects that are merely "user-reported" in this article is wrong. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 01:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog: and as clarified for the benefit for experienced editors, the particular side effect they brought up, namely the tinnitus, is also reported by MEDORG and MEDRS. Its still not enough to put any statement of fact in Wikivoice, but it's certainly not only user-reported. CutePeach (talk) 12:05, 26 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 02:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McFarlane (American actor)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of an actor, purportedly "known" only for one supporting role in a television series. Just having one recurring role is not automatically notable enough to confer an instant free pass over WP:NACTOR #1 in and of itself -- reliable source coverage about him and his roles has to be shown to establish their significance, such as a nomination for or win of a major top-level acting award (Oscar, Emmy, etc.) and/or sufficient coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG.
While this was recently stubbed down from a longer, semi-advertorialized version that detailed a lot of bit parts, it's never had any references in it at all and thus there's no old version of this article worth reverting back to.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can write and properly reference something quite a bit better than this, but one role in a television series is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 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 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Murphy (Scottish footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable, non professional footballer. Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Need_input. RedPatch (talk) 14:18, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tait (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. The role he's "known" for in the introduction was a supporting character so minor that he doesn't even get named in our article about the film at all (and we have a loooooooong article about that film), and is "sourced" only to Tait's IMDb profile rather than any reliable source coverage about it -- while the only other source here is a casting announcement for a future series, which namechecks Tait's existence amid a list of 20 actors cast in parts in that series without saying anything else about him as an individual (or even really clarifying whether Tait was cast in a major leading role or a minor supporting one), and thus isn't enough "coverage" to get him over the bar all by itself.
As always, actors don't automatically pass NACTOR #1 just because the article has a list of roles in it -- reliable sources have to be shown to demonstrate that the role was "significant" enough to pass that criterion, such as by singling out his performance for dedicated attention (as opposed to just glancingly namechecking that he was there) and/or showing that he won or was nominated for a major acting award for one or more of them.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing to support it, but actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show more than just cursory verification that they've had acting roles. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Power[edit]

Robin Power (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO, etc. The one source given has only an incidental mention of the subject, and I haven't been able to find much else. – Ploni (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Google search I conducted returned the subject's social media, wiki-like sites, couches (really?), and other stuff irrelevant to the subject. There are no sources that allow the subject to pass the given notability criteria. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 22:03, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of International Professionalism[edit]

Institute of International Professionalism (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)

Out of process move by a new account with a declared COI after several draft declines. I'm not seeing even an assertion notability here, but mindful of systemic bias and language issues so bringing it here for conversation Star Mississippi 14:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article shows no proof of notability. WP:MILL. Give me a feeling of promo. The Banner talk 16:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC
  • Delete. Sourcing relies solely on directory entries that are based on primary source contributions. While locating reliable secondary sources remains a challenge in Asian countries, nonetheless our WP:N requirement cannot be met by primary sources and directories. Devoid of secondary WP:RS, this article fails WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:21, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Avery[edit]

Mark Avery (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)

Have not found any independent sources that indicate he is notable enough to meet WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like it was created by the subject in 2011 as a CV and not changed significantly since then. VO artists that participated in a handful of projects are not intrinsically notable. ApLundell (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any coverage in secondary sources, aside from mentions in databases like iMDB. Fails WP:GNG Merko (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here comes close to being a significant role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 23 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 14:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teens 101[edit]

Teens 101 (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 came across this via the AfD for the short film Perspective (short film). This initially looked pretty rough (see the pre-cleanup version here), but I was optimistic about this given that one of the performers won a Young Artist Award. I'm not familiar with the Joey Award, but it wasn't a win so that's kind of a moot point.

As I was cleaning up I noticed that one of the sources listed in the reception section was not actually a review - it was an article written during the series' production. It does look a little like it was based on a press release, but giving it the benefit of the doubt.

After cleaning the article ultimately all it had to establish notability were the YAA and the newspaper source, which is a little too light for my liking. I don't think that the YAA is enough to keep on that basis alone, nor is the newspaper source enough to really help give it that extra push. If it had an actual review then I'd be satisfied, but the article only had links to various places where material on the show was hosted. One of the links given in the reception section was a press release where someone gave a promotional blurb, also not usable for reception/notability purposes.

I tried looking for sourcing, searching in Google, Newspapers.com, and a college database, but found nothing that I could use. If someone can find something usable to help solidify notability then I'm definitely open to keeping this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Joey Award, for the record, is basically a Canadian equivalent to the Young Artist Award — but it gets absolutely no non-trivial media coverage in reliable sources to establish its notability, and thus it isn't an award that can confer automatic notability freebies on its winners or nominees if we cannot establish that the award itself is a notable one in the first place. So it's WP:GNG or bust. But five of the six footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all; the only media citation is coming from a college student newspaper rather than a GNG-worthy major newspaper like the Toronto Star or the Hamilton Spectator, so it would be acceptable for use if there were other quality sources alongside it but isn't enough all by itself if it's the only third-party media source that can be found. And even on a ProQuest search, literally all I found was one press release from its own studio (which is still an unusable primary source), one hit of "local kid does stuff" in Dylan Duff's hometown community pennysaver, and a bunch of coincidental text matches on local community youth groups dated a full decade before this series even existed.
    Also, this article was created by a likely WP:COI editor, as their edit history has concentrated entirely on trying to get Dylan Duff and his work into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 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 14:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carson (actor)[edit]

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

Biography of an actor, not making any strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NACTOR. The strongest notability claim on offer here is that he once temporarily replaced the lead actor in a repertory theatre production in 1962 -- but that's not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and all of the other roles listed here are supporting or bit parts rather than major roles that would clinch passage of NACTOR #1.
And the sourcing isn't cutting it for getting him over WP:GNG, either: four of the ten footnotes are to genealogical records found in FamilySearch, which we are not allowed to use as referencing for Wikipedia content; one is his alumni profile on the self-published website of his own alma mater, which is not support for notability; one is a book which glancingly namechecks his existence on one page without being about him in any non-trivial sense, being cited only to support the fact that he studied Russian in university rather than anything that would constitute a notability claim; and of the four citations that actually come from WP:GNG-worthy periodicals, three of them also just glancingly namecheck his existence rather than being about him in any meaningful way.
There's only one source here that actually has Paul Carson as its subject, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of in-depth coverage about him.
As I don't have access to any database in which I could retrieve archived British media coverage from the 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have access to such resources can find enough coverage to improve it — but the sourcing here right now isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 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 14:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baltazar Fedalizo[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL by several miles - unelected, no other coverage and this is obviously just a PR piece for his campaign. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:44, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Nolan (politician)[edit]

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

I don't see how Nolan meets WP:NPOL as a local politician (basically the county equivalent of a city councilperson) and doesn't have coverage otherwise that would qualify him under GNG or any other criteria. He seems like a run of the mill local politician that hasn't received any coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:18, 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 13:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dunn[edit]

Jeremy Dunn (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 major roles or significant coverage. – Ploni (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah Not Really Notable Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Best I could find is that he was part of (large) ensembles that were nominated for SAG awards for stunts in a movie. For the most recent Indiana Jones and The Amazing Spider-Man.[44][45] Also founder/owner of iStunt, but not much there either, usually mentions of it when talking about an associated stuntman. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:49, 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 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Agency in popular culture[edit]

National Security Agency 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)

This articles as the same problems as the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Force in popular culture (and the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Intelligence Agency in popular culture). Mainly: "mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft." Like them, 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. My BEFORE failed to find anything useful to even start rewriting this, plus WP:TNT applies to the current OR list of trivia ("In the comic book XIII, the hero (whose name is not certain) is constantly tracked down by the NSA."). This type of content is not encyclopedic - it's pure OR that belongs at https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/NSA Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 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 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 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Country Fire Authority appliances[edit]

Country Fire Authority appliances (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:NOTDIR and poorly sourced, non notable list of every piece of fire fighting equipment and appliances. A brief summary of appliances already appears on the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:01, 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 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 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Country Fire Service appliances[edit]

Country Fire Service appliances (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:NOTDIR and poorly sourced, non notable list of every piece of fire fighting equipment and appliances. A brief summary of appliances already appears on the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 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 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 13:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tenis Clube São José[edit]

Tenis Clube São José (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 nothing that shows this sports venue is notable. SL93 (talk) 09:16, 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 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 12:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Thakur[edit]

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

This article is not enough notable to stand alone article the references do not show the significant coverage of the person. AlexandruAAlu (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:04, 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 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 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Child Sex Abuse People's Tribunal[edit]

United Kingdom Child Sex Abuse People's Tribunal (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)

As mentioned in the tags on the article, this seems to have been created by people close to the subject, and is based on routine coverage. The only third-party reference given (The Guardian) does not mention the tribunal, and is probably a case of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

The only convincing thing I could find (other than passing references in routine news coverage) was an academic study here, but even this seems to a possible WP:COI, as it is written by an Alan Collins, who may be the legal adviser to the tribunal mentioned here (then again, it may be a different person by the same name). QueenofBithynia (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:04, 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 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 13:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETTN[edit]

ETTN (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 as unsourced since 2011. Not even sure if this is a thing in the first place - just a whole lot of wiki mirrors and so on coming up in google, or unrelated things with the same acronym. asilvering (talk) 08:58, 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 redirect to Rajaram I. The intended target, as the suggested Rajaram is a disambiguation page. ✗plicit 13:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasbai[edit]

Rajasbai (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 enough to have a dedicated page, there were numerous such wives and consorts. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 07:30, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Tyagi[edit]

Rajiv Tyagi (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 person Amitized (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Amitized: You cannot !vote on your own nomination, and this is not a vote. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. I thought I have to specify my vote in the format Shellwood did, hence I added it. Thanks for informing me. Amitized (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP as it passes WP:GNG. There are enough citation in Google news to prove his notability. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:52, 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 no consensus. Per the discussion herein, I added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template atop the article. North America1000 07:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki (album)[edit]

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

Most sources on page are primaries (Only four aren't, but one of those is another WP article so that's no good either). I think there may be enough reliable non-primary sources available to still make something worthwhile out of this, including at least one or two that aren't already present which I saw on Google, but I'd like to see the article draftified first to be certain. As is, this article is definitely not up to snuff. QuietHere (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, album seems to have charted but I couldn't find any reputable reviews (just questionable blogs) and the current sourcing is atrocious. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Only the last 2 sources in the article are reliable since it talks about the EP. The rest are primary sources. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [46], [47], [48], [49] and [50]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were the sources I saw in my search that led me to suggest draftifying rather than outright deleting. A lot of the article may need to be torn down in removing all the primaries which will be quite the process, but I will second that it passes notability given the links you've provided. And perhaps the article doesn't actually need to be draftified in order to do all that work, but either way a big change is needed. QuietHere (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. I agree with the nom that it needs to be trimmed down. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 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 keep. ✗plicit 13:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Police POV[edit]

Police POV (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 one article from the Washington Post, but no more than that. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Yahr, Emily (2011-04-15). "TV Review: 'Police POV' on truTV". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The review notes: "Short of magic, that would be nearly impossible, but truTV is attempting the next best thing on its new live-action cop series, “Police POV,” which debuts Sunday. Fitting officers with tiny, specialized camera equipment, the idea is that the audience will get a first-person, police-eye view as the cops chase down suspected criminals. While a somewhat intriguing idea on paper, the show seems to be trying to enhance a genre that doesn’t really need to be spiced up. ... Unfortunately, letting the audience run in the cops’ footsteps is more likely to give viewers motion sickness. Cameras bounce all over the place during chase scenes, and the dizzying result is hard to view, especially when the police are on foot. ... “Police POV” will tackle several cities — Memphis, Cleveland, Chattanooga — during its run, and while the events may be an adreneline high for those involved, it’s not necessary to take the audience along for the ride via specialized camera."

    2. Kiesewetter, John (2011-04-14). "'Police POV' features familiar Cincy cops". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Mandy Curfiss and Rose Valentino from "Police Women Of Cincinnati" return to TV Sunday — with six other Cincinnati police officers — in the new "Police POV" reality show (10 p.m., tru TV). Most of the 10 episodes feature five female and three male Cincinnati officers. Producers also use footage from two officers in Chattanooga, Tenn., and four in Fort Smith, Ark. The TV series was assembled from video shot early last year by officers wearing tiny "point of view" cameras over their ears, like a Bluetooth earpiece."

    3. Kiesewetter, John (2011-04-17). "McKeown seeks new station. Local police on reality TV again". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The 10 shows were assembled from video shot last year by officers wearing tiny "point of view" (POV) cameras over their ears, like a Bluetooth earpiece. ... Officers Alicia Bruewer, Jennifer Chilton, Melissa Cummings, Andy Davis, Eric Gilbert and Dan Roellig also appear on the show, shot 10 months before TLC came here in October."

    4. South, Todd (2010-11-27). "Cameras film Chattanooga police for new reality TV show". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Cameras are rolling with Chattanooga police for a new reality TV show scheduled to air in April.  The show, "Police POV," follows midsize city police departments across the country.  The truTV cable channel will feature Chattanooga police along with departments in Fort Smith, Ark., Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio, on the show. ... To help the audience see events through a police officer's perspective, the show uses a pensized camera that rests atop an officer's earlobe with a wire that attaches to a fist-sized computer where the recording can be reviewed. For the television show, a camera operator also films separate angles with a traditional shoulder-carried camera."

    5. McAlister, Nancy (2011-04-17). "truTV's "Police POV", a whole new look at law enforcement". Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Up close and personal from an officer's point of view is the basis of a truTV series that takes on-the-scene law enforcement to a new level. "Police POV," which premieres Sunday on the network, uses specially designed cameras worn by officers in the field to record encounters, including chases, shootouts and other confrontations."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Belz, Kate (2011-10-03). "Chattanooga becoming a destination for police reality TV shows". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "In one clip on truTV's new show "Police POV," a van veers onto the shoulder of Interstate 24, clips a vehicle and rolls down an embankment, taking out a utility pole. And then the driver pulls onto Rossville Boulevard with Chattanooga police Officer Jim Fielden hot on his tail. ... "Police POV" is one of three police reality TV shows to select Chattanooga as a filming location in the past year. ... "Police POV" allows viewers access to the officers' actual point of view through a small camera fitted to their temple. "Cuff'd" highlights the interactions between cops and freshly arrested young people in the squad car on the way to jail."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article a decade ago. At the time, it seemed relevant to create stub articles for all shows currently airing on major television networks regardless of how much information was known about them. I have no opinion on whether to keep or delete the article. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff )

All but one of them is just "X to appear on Police POV". All those sources confirm is that the show exists, nothing more. How is that significant coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:07, 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. Star Mississippi 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel of Pennsylvania Avenue[edit]

The Angel of Pennsylvania Avenue (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 a review, but it's a fairly short review by a freelance writer and I was unable to find anything else on ProQuest, Newspapers.com, etc. Seems to fail WP:NFILM Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Christmas Encyclopedia, 3d ed. SL93 (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources you cited are all just press-release generated blurbs to go along with the TV Guide (note how all three are un-attributed and directly adjacent to the TV Guide listings). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves two sources. SL93 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added some content to the article but pickings are extremely thin with this one. This looks like it was one of those Hallmark films (but not made for Hallmark Channel itself) that got a little lip service, but no true reviews. If there were some solid reviews out there then that may be different, but much of what I'm finding more covers this in passing. The focus is typically on Ulrich in the ones I've found. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 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 no consensus. Anyone wishing to merge the article is welcome to do so as a normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political ponerology[edit]

Political ponerology (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)

For some background, the article is currently about the concept of "political ponerology" as proposed by Andrzej Łobaczewski in his book Political Ponerology (Polish: Ponerologia polityczna. Nauka o naturze zła w adaptacji do zagadnień politycznych). The book was published by Red Pill Press or Pilule Rouge, a publishing house owned by Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, the leaders of a new religious group named the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind (see here for a list of everyone on the board of directors of the Fellowship, here for proof that most of the directors of the Fellowship are involved in Quantum Future Group, here for proof that Red Pill Press/Pilule Rouge is owned by QFG; in addition, Red Pill Press's homepage shows that most of their books were written by directors of the Fellowship or otherwise related to the Fellowship, as well as having an affiliates list which only list sites affiliated with the Fellowship).

The book itself outlines an alleged phenomenon known as "pathocracy". The ideas presented in this book, however, are a deeply antisemetic, racist, and eugenicist conspiracy theory (this article explains the conspiracy theory in far better detail than I could). The publisher itself is also known for parroting conspiracy theories about Bush and the Mossad committing 9/11 and regularly platforming Aleksandr Dugin, among other things.

The article doesn't mention any of this. In fact, the article promoted the so-called study of "political ponerology" as if it were a legitimate field of study rather than part of a conspiracy theory for over 14 years. The article was initially written by an editor with an undisclosed connection to the Fellowship (see WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_187#User:Poneros) and, before this morning, had only four sources, Two of them were the book itself, one of them was a news outlet named Signs of the Times or Sott.net, which is also owned by the Fellowship, and one of them was pages 37-40 of Kazimierz Dąbrowski's The Dynamics of Concepts, in which Dąbrowski supposedly supported Łobaczewski's assertion that he and other researchers worked together on the book in a secret research group. I managed to track down a copy of the book yesterday and found that the relevant pages did not mention anything to do with Łobaczewski, ponerology, pathocracy, or any sort of secret research group. The closest thing to that within those pages was Dąbrowski talking about negative integration and its connection to psychopathy before talking about positive disintegration. If anyone wants to verify this, we're willing to send a copy of the pages to them.

At this point, I think it'd be best to blow it up and start over, changing the article's subject to be about the book and the spread of its ideas, if we are to have an article about this at all. In its current form, there is nothing worth saving in this article. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No strong opinion, but some context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Łobaczewski. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that it would make more sense to have an article named after and focused on the book, rather than the "field" named after it. Whether deletion and rewriting or moving and editing is best, I don't know. I'm interested in this book, but much information about it would count as original research. One source missing from Wikipedia has been a 00s video interview with Lobaczewski (the interviewer is Henry See, book co-editor, who later left the cult). I rewrote and maintain the RationalWiki article on the cult leader and cult, and note that the message of the book has been grossly distorted and abused by the cult (and in turn some other alt-right figures). In an (incomplete) essay on Political Ponerology, I give the book and its author the benefit of the doubt, summarize part of it, try to separate its message from that of the cult, and argue that it contains some valuable ideas but not a current science. I welcome further discussion on those topics, including critical, on RationalWiki or in proper places here on Wikipedia. --JoelKP (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if this comes off as rude, but you should probably read the Overland article if you haven't already. It's a conspiracy theory through and through, and quite an antisemetic and racist one at that. It also repeats the "supermale" myth about people with XYY syndrome if I'm remembering correctly. Also the publisher of the original Polish-language version is uh... Oddly obsessed with the "Jewish question". And they also published a Polish translation of Henry Ford's The International Jew. Some company named Ostoja. Similar situation with Vide Editorial who got Brazilian fascist Olavo de Carvalho to write a foreword to it. This book is awful along with the ideas presented in it. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it after seeing the link here, and it's the best critical article I've found so far, and in that way was a surprise. I've been thinking over my essay, which I linked to, and possible changes to it. Some changes are warranted; it already mentioned that Lobaczewski's psychiatry has developed along a different path since the psychiatry of the early 20th century, in some ways remaining outdated, and that bridging that gap is not done in the book; but more can be said about flaws outside outdated views on genes, for example. The most troubling new thing for me to consider is possible links to old Polish far right, which in turn brings a lot more into question. I hadn't come across information about the publisher of the Polish version before, nor (which I saw there) heard of another book being published. Much else about the book and author has seemed to look very different depending on whether you see it as a final product vs. take the idealistic message about future scientific development of a proposed field seriously, and whether or not it's applied to world events in the style of yellow journalism (as both Sott.net and at least one source criticized in the Overland article seem to me to do). --JoelKP (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there was a third book written by him as well, though it's harder to find. Though do you mind elaborating on the "final product vs idealistic message" thing a bit? I'm not quite sure what you mean. ~Opal of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He was apparently also working on some new book he couldn't complete before he passed away (mentioned by Sott). On another topic, the lack of evidence elsewhere for a secret research group, I think that Sott/Fellowship/etc. would have long-since shown anything they had found in their articles, if they had anything to show, so as to boost their message. (I already had the Dabrowski book, from Bill Tillier's positivedisintegration.com, and can confirm that there's nothing there.)
    To elaborate, Political Ponerology contains a good, eloquent pro-science idealism suggesting that no answers are fixed and scientific progress should be the basis for how humanity's problems are solved. That part is very nice in my view, but in the book it accompanies a very mixed bag. I think that some who like the book basically ignore, or regard as historical curiosities, the outdated psychiatric categories and ideas, and mainly find value in the psychological ideas that can be considered together with modern and more varied ideas and views. Such ideas may or may not work out for use in modern theories, but in any case don't have the problems of bigotry and related baggage which the more plainly flawed stuff does. The mixture of things in the book means different things can be made out of it. I do find it weird that Lobaczewski clung so hard to plainly outdated and flawed ideas, though.
    I've updated my own essay, and whether you find something in it useful or not, now I think it has a good-enough criticism to not be misleading (I got a lot out of Glazov's Overland article). --JoelKP (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, you're saying that the book was just on positivedisintegration.com for free the entire time? And we didn't have to watch WorldCat for months just to find a library copy? ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait never mind, I remember why I didn't just use that site. Wasn't sure whether the site's contents matched the book or not. ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not for free, but Tillier maintains an archive, with permission from the copyright holder, of scanned and OCR'ed copies of nearly all of Dabrowski's works. Currently it's $25 for all of it. I got a copy back in 2013. The link to that page doesn't stand out so much on his main page, though.
    As an aside, Tillier was in contact with, but then had a falling out with, some in the Cassiopaea group back in the 00s. They wanted to work with him, but had disagreements about both psychopathy and personality development. He did not find evidence in LKJ's books for her claims of having gone through an advanced personality development. (The reason this is not mentioned in the RW article is that there's no public evidence to link to. It's in a member's area of the Cassiopaea forum.) JoelKP (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Advanced personality development"??? ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper Dabrowski term is Level V, or secondary integration. This is, in the teaching of the Cassiopaea group, associated with the esoteric idea of the "second birth", or becoming "man no. 5" in the (unrelated) terms of the teaching of Gurdjieff, which in earlier years was more central to the idea of the group as an "esoteric school". (This stuff is in their public forum.) LKJ claims in her books to have gone through that "second birth". Tillier finds some mystics to show traits described by Dabrowski as corresponding with his higher stages, and that's simply Dabrowskian. But mysticism doesn't make nor break a multilevel person, it just ties into overexcitabilities. The gossipy part is about Tillier looking over LKJ's works and basically dismissing her as just hysterical. JoelKP (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelKP: Ah, I see. I think. ~Tammy of Arctic Circle System (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Merge to Ponerology. Some above have noted that the two articles don't really intersect at the current moment, but there are sources that explicitly connect the idea of the applications of this in the political domain to the remainder of ponerology. The book itself is borderline, and the material is not so fringe as to be wholly excluded from the literature (see 1 and 2, each of which cite the book as parts of their literature reviews). Rather than totally removing the article (and deleting associated redirects), and alternative to deletion of merging into the article on Ponerology would allow us to preserve the content that's been covered by RS other than the author. The concept of "pathocracy", which currently redirects to this article (and was more covered in this April 25 version of the article), also itself is covered by a variety of sources, including Psychology Today (1, 2), The Psychologist, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Times Literary Supplement, The Conversation, and Passion killers: The art of passion killing in the age of stress and anxiety. Some of these are sharply critical of the concept of "Pathocracy", but the fact that there is so much coverage shows that there is something GNG-notable here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The crux of our point wasn't that the Political ponerology article needed to be deleted for failing to meet WP:GNG, but rather that it should be deleted per WP:TNT. In its current state, there's nothing worth saving, but the book is notable. I would also like to note that the April 25th version of the article was stripped down because the only source for the "Psychopathology and politics" section was the book itself. ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhawk10: Whoops, forgot to ping. Also sorry if my previous reply seemed rude, I'm not sure if it was rude or not, at least at the beginning. ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arctic Circle System: Per WP:TNT, if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article (emphasis mine). Simply put, that was never the case for this article; its first revision contains content that is useful (i.e. who coined the term, the term's origin, and where the theory originated). As such, the WP:TNT argument holds little weight, since the essay itself does not so much as make the claim that we should delete articles based on their current state. Doing so, of course, is against deletion policy and WP:ATD-E notes that reduction of an article to a stub is actually a perfectly acceptable alternative to deletion. The reason that I advocate for a merge (WP:ATD-M) is that I think the topic of "Political ponerology" could naturally become a child article of "ponerology", but a-la-WP:PAGEDECIDE there are times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. For now, I think merging is the way to go, though an article on the book itself might be worthwhile if someone wants to make that as well. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhawk10: Other than basic details about the book and its author, none of the revisions contained anything particularly useful. But I guess that would be beside the point if we end up deleting to merge it with the ponerology article anyway.
    As for the book being borderline in terms of it being fringe and/or a conspiracy theory, from what I've read of it, the core premise seems to be that a sinister pathological minority, a majority (or at least a plurality) of whom just so happen to be Jews and people of mixed ethnicity who just so happen to follow The Protocols of the Elders of Zion infect societies and governments and destroys them from within as part of a process in which good times cause people to "progressively lose sight of the need for profound reflection, introspection, knowledge of others, and an understanding of life's complicated laws" leading to bad times which "produce experience, good sense, moderation, and a certain amount of psychological knowledge" which in turn lead back to good times. The book also states around the beginning that "The irretrievable disappearance of the second version also meant the loss of the overwhelming majority of statistical data and facts which would have been so valuable and conclusive for specialists in the field." In other words, he didn't have the vast majority of his evidence nor information on where that evidence came from and we're supposed to take him at his word. And to elaborate on the "people of mixed ethnicity" thing, he believed that people of mixed ethnicity are prone to a form of psychopathology known as skirtoidism. He supposedly got this information from Ernst Kretschmer, but there don't seem to be any other records of him expressing such an idea. He also promoted the "supermale" myth about people with XYY syndrome on page 86 of the second edition of the book, albeit not by name. The book itself was published by a cult that claims the Mossad did 9/11, another publishing company known for publishing the works of Brazilian far-right conspiracy theorist Olavo de Carvalho, and a third publishing company which published various antisemetic works, including a Polish translation of Henry Ford's The International Jew. Taking this into consideration, it reads to me like this whole "pathocracy" thing is an ableist, racist, and antisemetic conspiracy theory that was written to sound intellectual enough and appeal to existing biases against people with personality disorders enough that some mainstream sources would uncritically promote its ideas. But perhaps that's just me. I'm also not sure whether I read your post correctly or not, so I apologize if I misread it. That being said, the book, its ideas, and its perception in popular culture is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia, though I cannot say I have a very charitable view of the subject. At this point I'm probably rambling so I'll just cut it off here. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a specialist in how wikipedia works, I usually read it, I'm surprised to have found this entry marked for deletion. Something I personally had never seen in other articles.
I have read the book, and I do not agree with the reasons presented to delete it from wikipedia. Andrew M. Lobaczewski had many problems when he emigrated to the United States, many publishers did not let him publish the book there either, the publisher that published it many years later than he would have wanted, was discarded, since many others did not want to do it.
It is slanderous that there is antisemitic content in the book. People have to read it. There is only one book written by this man as far I know. He is dead since 2008.
There is talk of genetic differences of various races, which within many other factors, cultural, historical, etc. they also intervene in that there are differences regarding the progress of the pathocracy. What are studies from other sources, but the persecution or discrimination of any race or culture is not advocated, anyone who has interpreted that has not read the book.
In any case, it seems to me an error to try to eliminate a content from Wikipedia by judging the author, by judging a small part of the book, which does not affect the general subject at all, because of the whole of the book, which is impressive.
In any case, it seems to me an error to try to eliminate a content from wikipedia by judging the author, by judging a small part of the book, which does not affect the general subject at all, for the whole of the book, which for me personally is impressive and it seems a fundamental work of inspiration and prevention of great disasters. 80.30.19.216 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what's going on. Articles are occasionally marked for deletion for the reasons listed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion or WP:TNT (this is not an exhaustive list, though I think it's close). This is a normal part of Wikipedia's editorial process. We have no desire to eliminate coverage of the book from Wikipedia because we find its contents objectionable, and I don't think JoelKP or Mhawk10 want that either.
The reason why we're trying to get this article deleted is because from its inception it has been plagued with issues. For one thing, it was initially created by someone with an undisclosed connection to the publisher of the English, Spanish, French, Russian, German, and Dutch translations of the book (see here) who added disinformation to the article (see above). In addition, the article greatly misrepresented the subject it was covering, failing to follow WP:NPOV guidelines. It treated the ideas presented in Łobaczewski's book as if they were proven facts, omitting any and all criticism of the book, its publishers, and others who popularized his ideas. In addition, we feel that it would be more appropriate for the article to be about Political Ponerology the book rather than political ponerology the concept, as it would enable better coverage of the book, its author, its publishers, and the spread of its ideas. And as such, we feel the best way to facilitate better coverage of the subject is to delete the current incarnation of the article and rewrite it from scratch.
There is also no evidence to suggest that either Łobaczewski's or Laura Knight-Jadczyk's account of his difficulties publishing the book over the years are true. Same with his assertion that he was part of a secret research group in the first place. I should also mention that he wrote two other books, but they are not particularly relevant to this subject and they have never been published in any language other than Polish.
As for your assertion that it is slanderous to suggest that the book and its author are antisemetic, this article written by Ramon Glazov breaks explains the racism and antisemitism within the book as well as other antisemetic remarks made by its author, and criticizes the book's core ideas as well. In addition, the book has been published by a rogues' gallery of antisemetic conspiracy theorists, including Ostoja Publishing House, which publishes works in support of Polish nationalism including a Polish translation of Henry Ford's The International Jew, Vide Editorial, which is known for publishing works written by far-right conspiracy theorist Olavo de Carvalho, and Red Pill Press, which is run by a cult which claims that the Mossad did 9/11. Given all of this, I believe there is enough evidence to put forth the suggestion that the book and its ideas are antisemetic.
As for you, I would advise against adding paragraphs of unsourced information to the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. ~Tammy of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I drop the matter, my general incompetence over who administers this, the rules and all, puts me at a serious disadvantage. I see that the judgment of antisemitism is by association, and association with association, and association with association. It is a forced argument to discredit a person. But none of that serves as a justification for judging an author who has nothing to do with anti-Semitic positions. I think all of this reminds me of this, the topic of Goldin's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I will continue defending the work of Andrzej M. Łobaczewski, because to me personally it seems transcendental to explain the great misfortunes of the present times. And an issue, that of psychopathy in society, which should be studied more seriously. 80.30.19.216 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he regularly said stuff like "I did not know, and nobody in Poland realized, just how much influence the "security apparatus" [Sluzba Bezpieczenstwa (SB) or State Security Service], with the help of Jews, had on Polish emigrants living abroad." in interviews as well. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the entire book of this deceased psychiatrist, and none of that appears. Source? Link that interview.
The book is legally free here: https://archive.org/details/political-ponerology/page/30/mode/2up
So it's easy to check.
Next I am going to leave all the fragments of the book where the three letter word j+e+w appears, isolated or inside an other word. That word appears 7 times in the entire book of 105762 words. 2 times is the publisher, not the author. 1 time is an index.
1. Page 38 "[...]If a collection were to be made of all those books which describes the horrors of wars, the cruelties of revolutions, and the bloody deeds of political leaders and their systems, many readers would avoid such a library. Ancient works would be placed alongside books by contemporary historians and reporters.The documentary treatises on German extermination and concentration camps, and of the extermination of the Jewish Nation, furnish approximate statistical data and describe the well organized “labor” of the destruction of human life, using a properly calm language, and providing a concrete basis for the acknowledgment of the nature of evil. The autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, the commander of camps in Oswiecim (Auschwitz) and Brzezinka (Birkenau), is a classic example of how an intelligent psychopathic individual with a deficit of human emotion thinks and feels[...]"
2. Page 112. Editor's note (It's not Andrew Lobaczeski) "[...]Vassily Grossman was a Soviet citizen, a Ukrainian Jew born in 1905. A Communist, he became a war correspondent, working for the army paper Red Star - a job which took him to the front lines of Stalingrad and ultimately to Berlin. He was among the first to see the results of the death camps, and published the first account of a death camp - Treblinka - in any language. After the war, he seems to have lost his faith in him. He wrote his immense novel, Life and Fate (Zhizn i Sudba) in the 1950s and - in the period of the Krush-chev thaw, which had seen Alexander Solzhenitsyn allowed to publish A Day on the Life of Ivan Denisovich - he submitted the manuscript to a literary journal in 1960 for publication. But Solzhenitsyn was one thing, Grossman another: his manuscript was confiscated, as were the sheets of carbon paper and typewriter ribbons he had used to write it. Suslov, the Politbureau member in charge of ideology, is reported as having said it could not be published for 200 years. However, it was smuggled out on microfilm to the west by Vladimir Voinovich, and published, first in France in 1980, then in English in 1985. Why the 200 year ban? Because Life and Fate commits what was still, in a ‘liberal’ environment, the unthinkable sin of arguing for the moral equivalence of Nazism and Soviet communism.[Editor's note][...]
3. Page 124 [...]Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, especially when the schizoids embitter other people's lives. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid's failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses. The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people. The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3%. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7% of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary. A schizoid's ponenological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponenogenic role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions. In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors' characters are really like. Ignorant of the true condition of the author, such uninformed readers thed to interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of nnormal people tend toward corrective interpretation due to the participation of their own richer, psychological world view.[...]
4 and 5. Page 186 [...] The conviction that Karl Marx is the best example of this is correct as he was the best-known figure of that kind. Frostig 91, a psychiatrist of the old school, included Engels and others into a category he called “bearded schizoidal fanatics”. The famous writings attributed to “Zionist Wise Men” at the turn of the century begin with a typically schizoidal declaration.92 The nineteenth century, especially its latter half, appears to have been a time of exceptional activity on the part of schizoidal individuals, often but not always of Jewish descent. After all we have to remember that 97% of all Jews do not manifest this anomaly, and that it also appears among all European nations, albeit to a markedly lesser extent. Our inheritance from this period includes world-images, scientific traditions, and legal concepts flavored with the shoddy ingredients of a schizoidal apprehension of reality. Humanists are prepared to understand that era and its legacy within categories characterized by their own traditions. They search for societal, ideational, and moral causes for known phenomena. Such an explanation, however, can never constitute the whole truth, since it ignores the biological factors which participated in the genesis of the phenomena. Schizoidia is the most frequent factor, albeit not the only one.[...]
6. Page 186 Editor's note (It's not Andrew Lobaczeski) "The “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is now well known to have been a hoaxed attribution to Jews. However, the contents of the Protocols are clearly not “hoaxed ideas” since a reasonable assessment of the events in the United States over the past 50 years or so gives ample evidence of the application of these Protocols in order to bring about the current Neocon administration. Anyone who wishes to understand what has happened in the U.S. only needs to read the Protocols to understand that some group of deviant individuals took them to heart. The document, “Project For A New American Century”, produced by the Neoconservatives reads as if it had been inspired by the Protocols. [Editor's note.]"
7. Page 327. Index. "[...]How interpreted by normal person, 186 Pathological acceptance of, 187 Three reactions to, 187 Schizoida, 214, 223 Schizoidia, 123, 137, 186, 188 And Jews, 186 Impose conceptual views on others, 185 Schizophrenia, 123, 124, 165,167[...]"
End 80.30.19.216 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article it has a link to the interview. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 22:26, 24 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 12:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Sexy Ladies[edit]

International Sexy Ladies (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)

Yet another contested prod. Zero sourcing found on Proquest. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find anything about it. Network is gone and the show was off the air over 10 yrs ago. Oaktree b (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nothing found in a search brought anything that would demonstrate notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find anything other than new show, renewed at G4, and trademark filled passing mentions. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:17, 22 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) 09:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo: Bukkazoom![edit]

Hugo: Bukkazoom! (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)

There seems to be little coverage. Redirect to List of Hugo video games should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 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 01:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Truly a gaming masterpiece on par with BioShock... anyway, Mobygames says it got at least 3 reviews from reliable sources - Absolute Games, JeuxVideo and PC Games (Germany). That combined with the Official Nintendo Magazine review demonstrates that it passes WP:GNG beyond a shadow of a doubt and should not be zooming towards deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Entry in a notable franchise, which itself got enough coverage to be notable. Merko (talk) 09:59, 22 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 Charli XCX#Career. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased third studio album (Charli XCX)[edit]

Unreleased third studio album (Charli XCX) (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 project was never released and likely never will be released. Where appropriate, information about the unreleased studio album can be included on "After the Afterparty", "Boys" (Charli XCX song), Charli (album), and the artist's page. TheKaphox T 04:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheKaphox T 04:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Charli XCX#Career (2015-2018 period). The fact that a partially-completed album was leaked then cancelled then widely bootlegged is relevant for the singer's career, but there is not enough info available for a separate album article. This article is severely padded with historical events in the singer's career that happened around the same time, but all that can be said about the unreleased album is her own words that it "was never really a fully formed thing". News about the leak and cancellation can be added to the history at her article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Charli XCX#Career as WP:CRYSTAL. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 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 12:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lui e lei (TV series)[edit]

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

Not a proper WP entry. Regardless of notability, this fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This concern has been answered to the fullest over there. Also here, I'm striking through the part of the intro based on which the other discussion was sidetracked. After the discussion was back on the rails, the other article was deleted. As the closing editor put it: "No compelling case for notability has been made". Applies here as well. In fact, there is a consensus here to delete. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:06, 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 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 13:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Absecon, New Jersey[edit]

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

List of non-notable mayors of a tiny town, fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 (talk) 04:03, 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 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 13:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Aberdeen Township, New Jersey[edit]

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

A list of non-notable small town mayors. Fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 (talk) 03:56, 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 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 05:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polished[edit]

Polished (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 about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, and the only source being cited is the self-published festival catalogue of a film festival that screened it, which is not a WP:GNG-worthy source at all (and even if we accepted it anyway, it still wouldn't be enough all by itself). Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective (short film)[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim being attempted here is that it won a couple of awards at small-fry film festivals, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie -- the ability of a film festival award to confer notability on its winners attaches to a narrow tier of prominent international film festivals on the order of Toronto, Berlin, Cannes or Sundance that get widespread media coverage, not just to any random film festival whose awards have to be sourced to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage is nonexistent.
But this is sourced exclusively to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (the websites of the film festivals, the director's own press release announcing his film, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person in limited circulation local interest magazines, and I've also already stripped citations to Instagram and YouTube), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the film shown at all.
It's also a likely WP:COI, as it was initially created as a straight copyvio by a virtual WP:SPA whose only other edit history apart from this has consisted entirely of trying to create an article about the filmmaker — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Duff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Duff (2nd nomination) — and trying to add Dylan Duff's name to other articles.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish the director well but this short just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Most short films never do, as they typically don't get the type of coverage needed to pass NFILM or GNG - and that is including the ones put out by big studios with major actors. Offhand it looks like the page for Teens 101 needs to be reviewed as well, since it looks to have some of the same issues with sourcing and so on. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:06, 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 redirect to De Museumfabriek#Collections. ✗plicit 03:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Deinse Instituut[edit]

Van Deinse Instituut (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:GNG Happyecheveria (talk) 03:37, 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. After two relistings, there has not been a second community member who agrees with the nomination to delete. Further discussions should occur on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atatürk's Main Principles[edit]

Atatürk's Main Principles (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 treats (per lead) the The Six Arrows also described in Kemalism, which also has six principles. The content of the article is much better known as Kemalism which is also known as Atatürkism. Redirect it to Kemalism is a solution, Kemalism is also known as Atatürkism per its lead there. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our coverage of these topics suffers from a good deal of conceptual confusion. There are at least two different concepts here that must be covered in at least two different articles. Kemalism, despite the definition in that article, is not a rigid ideology but a vague set of ideals left in the wake of Atatürk's death (the term was almost never used in his lifetime). Over the decades this was used almost as a blank canvas by mainstream Turkish ideologies and different versions of Kemalism e.g. left-wing Kemalism, right-wing Kemalism, "Atatürkism" (the post-1980 coup formulation i.e. Atatürkçülük) emerged. Now, the six pillars of Atatürk's principles (Atatürk ilkeleri) are only one formulation of this vague set of ideals as set forward in the 1931 CHP Congress. It is not the whole of Kemalism by any means, so it would be appropriate to summarise the relevant content in the Kemalism main article and signpost to this article for further information. Finally, the Six Arrows are often used synonymously with the six principles, but also refer to the graphic icon associated with the CHP. It may be worth debating whether we need to merge the article on the Six Arrows into this one, but AfD is not the appropriate venue for that discussion. For more information on what I've said here and the different subgroups within Kemalism in historical context, Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düşünce: Kemalizm (İletişim Yayınları, 2009) is an excellent read. --GGT (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want two articles about the same six principles from the same person? For the moment this is what the two articles are about. If then there is some editor with a serious knowledge on leftwing and right wing kemalism ok, but this two articles treat the same subject for the moment. Source number 2 is about Kemalism and is used to source two phrases of the first paragraph. Source number 1 is about the same six principles but uses a different term. That the integrative principles are a part of the main principles is WP:OR OR WP:SYNTH as long as they are not described in any source as such. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor on JSTOR or google scholar there is a hit, not one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no OR/SYNTH here, what I’m saying is literally what the entire book that I’ve cited is about. The current name of the article isn’t appropriate (it shouldn’t be “main principles”) but that’s not a matter for AfD. GGT (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, 1 This source is independent and reliable. Sources may be in any language. This article's notability can be easily proven. I think that users needs to try to improve the articles first instead of nominating for deletion. Regards,--Kadı Message 11:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. Kadı Message 11:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep and improve. There are unsourced sections, but these can either be sourced or removed, to leave the parts that are definitively already sourced. BD2412 T 06:32, 28 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 Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Welterweight. ✗plicit 12:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanouil Gneftos[edit]

Emmanouil Gneftos (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)

Gneftos was a non-medaling competitor in the Olympics. I search multiple places for significant coverage and found none. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote based on info provided by Chalk19 below. Jacona (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a website containing old Greek and/or Egyptian newspaper archives? If there is any, I'd say that's where the SIGCOV is at. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources on Greek Wikipedia indicate that SIGCOV exists, especially in light of his career as a referee and his activity in other sports. Although I cannot seem to access them, the policy is to assume good faith. EternalNomad (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifibility means articles must be based on the actual sources, not the hand-waing unverified claim that sources must exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      and monkey-throwing-poop quality claims that sources can't be found, from an editor who shows on a daily basis that he can'tresearch properly, deserve no credence whatever! 166.149.176.57 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out which of the Greek wikipedia sources constitute SIGCOV? At least two of them are dead links and none seems to mention the subject more than in passing. Avilich (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:AGF, we should assume, even though they are difficult to access (the former is a dead link), references 3 and 5 in Greek Wikipedia talk about a number of his activities beyond competing in the Olympics (unless there is a compelling reason to believe that they are WP:FAKE). EternalNomad (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF, a behavioral guideline, says nothing of the sort. If sources can't be verified they don't count. Avilich (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Avilich The dead link sources are to digital versions of printed sources, that is to articles of the mainstream Greek sports daily Αθλητική Ηχώ (Athletic Echo) in 1950. These sources are valid as any other printed source; the online availability is just a matter of convenience. Whether these two articles deal in passing with Gneftos or not is another issue. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect He was disqualified at his opening fight in the Olympics and there's no other indication of WP notability. Assuming good faith does not mean we can dispense with the requirement of good sources. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability and right now I don't see it. A redirect seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated in the Greek WP article, he was a champion in rowing and second in canoe championship in Egypt (cited source [in Greek], with photo: Αθλητική Επιθεώρησις [Athletic Review], Dec. 1923, p. 12 [54]). In another issue of the same sports monthly review (Αθλητική Επιθεώρησις, Aug. 1923, pp. 12-13) he is referred to as a champion in boxing in Egypt. Although in the cases above it is not clear if Gneftos was a champnion just among the Egyptian Greeks, even this is a pretty significant achievement and an indication (at least) of notability. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by this since there's no evidence of what championships he competed in or that the coverage was significant. I suspect that he doesn't meet WP:NSPORT and would still like more evidence that WP:GNG is met. However, I am striking my redirect vote, at least for now, in the hopes that more evidence of notability can be presented. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: evidence of sources would be helpful in establishing consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia is supposed to be based on verifiable information, evidence and sources, not opinions, so it's pretty depressing looking at a deletion debate based on whether individuals are personally convinced by sources that none have apparently read. Does anyone actually have access to the Greek newspaper articles from the 1950's? If none of us do, maybe we should defer to someone who does? Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. We can't keep an article on the possibility of some sources meeting the requirements of WP:GNG - articles can be used as sources without counting towards WP:GNG, and the Greek Wikipedia has different policies for the use of sources than the English Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Since no one has provided additional sourcing or evidence of WP notability in the past two weeks, I have reposted my original vote. His Olympic participation would be the likely reason someone would search for him and a redirect preserves that information. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the reasoning above. Actual sources need to be identified for us to assess whether GNG is met, and so far we don't have anything to go off. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nobody has shown that the GNG is met. Sandals2 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If there are sources we’re not seeing them and this has had plenty of time.Jacona (talk) 22:14, 23 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 03:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Von World Pens Hall[edit]

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

WP: GNG Happyecheveria (talk) 03:22, 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 03:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Rose (2003 film)[edit]

Name of the Rose (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a short film, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim evident here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- but the article is completely unsourced, and even on a deep database search for 20-year-old sourcing that might not have Googled I still found absolutely nothing. And no, this isn't the film you thought of when you saw the title, either. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything while searching either. With what I saw while searching, if it wasn't a junk hit, it was either routine database listings or hits for the Sean Connery film - and that's with limiters in place. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 23 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West London Penguin Swimming and Water Polo Club[edit]

West London Penguin Swimming and Water Polo Club (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 finding significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 03:15, 4 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, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG- being old doesn't make it automatically notable. [55] is just a short paragraph mentioning the club, and [56] just mentions a couple of events held there- neither are significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still adding sources including feature articles. It will take some time. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seven-time National Water Polo Championship title holders (well, which I've found so far), with at least three feature articles – [57] and [58] (both posted after Joseph2302's comment), plus the June 1952 cover story in The Swimming Times which unfortunately is not available online. Quite possible that there are other feature articles, but given all the additional media coverage historically for the 2–3 different incarnations of the club over more than a century (not to mention at least 23 GB Olympians affiliated with the club plus other internationals), it will take more time to go through it all. (The complicated current club name does not help.) But given what I've found to date, I am satisfied of the subject's notability, and also tried to add some inline citations, woefully lacking previously. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that from 16 May 2022‎ (UTC) to 18 May 2022 (UTC)‎, the article was significantly expanded, and many new sources were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @AusLondonder: and @Joseph2302:, could you please take another look at the article? I have expanded it substantially, also with more substantial sources, and tried to demonstrate notability. There are still several additional articles I am chasing down from Swimming Times magazine which will require multiple trips to the library, but I think this is in much better shape now. Also happy to hear any feedback, suggestions, or questions on the Article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has significant coverage on particular sources and passes the WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage per Cielquiparle. Going from 1 reference to 84 is really impressive, nice expansion work! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the expansion justifies inclusion. All those Olympians! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Massively expanded since the nomination. [59], [60], [61] and [62] more than meet the standard of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject required by WP:ORGCRIT. RicDod (talk) 20:32, 26 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. Star Mississippi 02:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American spring[edit]

Latin American spring (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)

Its an original synthesis of a neologism catching a way too loose association of protests across many countries and years. Dentren | Talk 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As for the three sources, the third one is an opinion piece titled "A Latin American Spring?", note the question mark. The first one writes "The “Latin American Spring” refers to the wave of demonstrations" with citations marks, which would not be needed if it was an established term. Two articles and opinion pieces in English is not enough to establish the existence of a "Latin American spring". The fact that many reputabe sources refers to this with either citations marks or questions marks (both English and Spanish sources) clearly point out some hesitancy on using the label. Dentren | Talk 09:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the term is agreed-upon as an event does not seem to particularly relevant so long as the concept is discussed as a concept. After all, we have an article about things like the Phantom time hypothesis and New chronology, which are both demonstrably false, but there is discussion about them as a topic regardless, so they're notable. TartarTorte 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/too-little-too-late-chilean-winter-latin-american-spring Yes There is nothing to be independent from so all sources are inherently independent Yes Widely considered to be a realiable source Yes Article is about the topic in Chile ✔ Yes
https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/the-latin-american-spring-why-south-america-is-protesting Yes " Yes Widely considered to be a realiable source Yes Article is about the concept of the Latin American Spring throughout Latin America. ✔ Yes
https://mjps.ssmu.ca/2019/12/16/opinion-a-latin-american-spring/ Yes " Yes A credible journal Yes The article is about whether or not the Latin American Spring exists; regardless providing SIGCOV ✔ Yes
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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As it currently stands, the article appears to be WP:OR, and the shown references are not enough to show this term is commonly used for such a wide number of protests (which span a variety of issues). Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 22:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 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 no consensus, or specifically there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus as between keeping or merging. The discussion on how to resolve that need not take place at AFD, and can be taken forward on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (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 fork of Neil Harvey does not meet Wikipedia's expectations for notability. Neil Harvey is notable, as is the team he played on, but the intersection of the two does not merit an article of its own. The role section should be merged to Neil Harvey, and everything else simply removed. This article is largely just a collection of statistics. One will notice that the references by and large are not about Neil Harvey, but other people. Just 3 of the 84 footnotes mention him by name. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is one of 13 about individual players on that tour, see [63]. It is unclear why just one of so many is being targeted for deletion. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other similar articles existing is not a reason for keeping this one; note that some have already been merged, e.g. Doug Ring, and it was previously agreed that the articles should be nominated individually as some undoubtedly merit standalone articles due to their contribution and resultant coverage. Please can you try to assess this article on its merits? wjematherplease leave a message... 07:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about "Harvey had the 4th-highest Test average on the tour." WWGB (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please try policy/guideline based reasoning. In general, that required demonstrated significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions and statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N through multiple WP:RS: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. WWGB (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't clear and omitted "secondary". Secondary coverage please. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your ongoing harassment is becoming tedious. Cast your own !vote and stop trying to own the discussion. WWGB (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the sourcing needs to support sufficient encyclopedic content to justify this spinout. Reciting endless trivial details from his appearances on the tour, which is largely what we have here, is not encyclopedic. We also have substantial amounts of prose that is entirely unrelated to Harvey, and already exists in the main article. If this can be reasonably condensed into a few paragraphs by removing this fluff/filler (I tend to think it can), then it should be merged. I am open to being convinced otherwise before !voting. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these such articles have been brought to AfD by me, most with a strong consensus to merge to the articles on the players themselves. Consensus is that each of these forks must be evaluated individually for notability. It is my belief that this article does not meet our notability requirements. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the issue is about sourcing, then you should fix the sourcing, don't just take the lazy option and bring it to AfD because you can't be bothered doing hard work on the actual article. The article is fine as fork of the 1948 cricket tour article and is properly referenced and notable. Just because a lot of the sources are statistics is an unremarkable argument - it's a sporting article after all. The statistics do feature Harvey in them. Deus et lex (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, please refrain from making personal comments. Second, more than stats are required to justify such an article. Please provide evidence (i.e. significant coverage of this intersection specifically) to demonstrate the notability you are claiming. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, this was directed at the nominator, not you so I'm unclear why you are commenting in response. Secondly, asking people to follow proper process and do some hard work to repair a Wikipedia article if they believe it is in error, instead of following a process not designed for a content dispute, is not a personal comment. Following an improper but easy process to avoid doing work is laziness. Thirdly, the nominator is raising a dispute about the sourcing of content, at its heart - that's not a notability dispute, so there's no need for me to "please provide evidence" of the notability. This article is a featured article that has been through a proper review process - it can't just be deemed to be unnotable because some person says it isn't. This is a poor quality nomination that should be withdrawn. Fourthly, please read WP:BLUDGEON and don't do that. Deus et lex (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the target of abuse doesn't have to be the one to call it out. You raised notability as an issue, so it is not unreasonable to request justification for that statement (unnotable is not a word). Of course, the real issue here is whether this spinoff is justifiable based on secondary coverage that is specifically related to Harvey's involvement in the tour, not just primary coverage, teamsheets and scorebooks from which prose is then synthesised. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not "abuse", so please don't exaggerate. Not following the proper process is laziness and I'm entitled to make that comment - it is not a personal comment at the nominator, it's a point about the lack of the right process. Can I raise again - you are not the nominator here, so please read WP:BLUDGEON and stop commenting on every post that is put forward. I did not raise notability - the nominator did, but what they are raising is a content dispute which is inappropriate for AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Crying foul because you cannot address (or recognise/comprehend) the issues is not ok. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not appreciate your assumption of bad faith on my part. That is bordering on a personal attack. AfD is a Wikipedia process whether you like it or not. As has been mentioned elsewhere, several of these forks have been merged in the past year. I do not need to be an expert on cricket to know that these forks are unfit for Wikipedia. It's not a "content dispute": I believe this subject does not merit a standalone page in Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you do not understand that the entire point of AfD is to delete or merge or redirect articles which are not notable, then you do not have the understanding necessary to participate at AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the umpteenth time, I am not making a personal attack - I just think the bringing of this article is trying to avoid work to fix up the article. The nature of the complaint you have raised is a content dispute (you have raised inadequate sourcing) - that's not a notability dispute, it's a problem with whether the article needs better sources. You haven't demonstrated that the existing sourcing shows a lack of notability - you've just complained they don't discuss Harvey enough. There's no consideration more generally of Harvey's notability on the tour at all which is what the question would be aimed at if this was a genuine AfD dispute about notability. I think the best case is for this AfD to be closed down and some work done to improve the article - or, to the contrary, for it to be shown that there are inadequate sources in general about this topic (which would be a notability dispute). Deus et lex (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there have been a number of similar AfD nominations, all of which have resulted in mergers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. But this one is not quite as clear-cut as the others, as Harvey is a more significant player, and one of the features of the 1948 tour was a handing of the baton, as it were, from Bradman to Harvey. StAnselm (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is far too detailed to belong in an encyclopaedia. An article on the 1948 tour would be appropriate but not separate articles on each member of the touring team. We should have a joint nomination for all such articles, probably to merge back into the tour article, without leaving redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried this a while back. Numerous editors insisted the articles must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So here we are. I think they all should be merged as you suggest. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion there is enough GNG sourcing here on Neil Harvey's participation in the 1948 tour alone for a standalone article. The article here is very well written, although parts of it are a bit bloated, however there is merging information here into Neil Harvey's article, or the 1948 tour article would make them excessive, meaning a separate article here should be acceptable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content from the lead and role section (and very little else) to a short sub-section in Neil Harvey. The bulk of the article is duplication from Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and not directly relevant to Harvey's involvement; the Harvey specifics are almost entirely trivial, synthesised, the writers opinions, or massively excessively detailed for an encyclopedia (e.g. three sentences describing his dismissal, and the lead up to it, in the 5th Test; an entire paragraph about Lindwall's "injury" in the 1st Test and Harvey substituting for him, etc., etc.). wjematherplease leave a message... 10:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively per Wjemather. The fact that particular details wouldn't be appropriate to merge to Harvey or the 1948 tour is probably a good indication that they aren't encyclopedic: excessively-detailed play-by-plays, minor statlines, and anecdotes from each test do not belong on any WP page, per WP:NOT and WP:DUE. This intersection overall also seems very synthetic; if you could easily swap out Harvey for any of his teammates without changing the references, then his role in the tour is not notable enough for a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete – this article is from another era of Wikipedia really, and while an amazing achievement and great piece of work from the nominator, I think it is pretty clear now that Wikipedia isn't the place for detailed essays such as this. Wjemather makes a number of good points regarding the content and its suitability for the encyclopaedia. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively certain parts of the article to the main article about the player. As Harrias says, this article is from a different era of Wikipedia by a user whose contributions to the cricket project are greatly missed. StickyWicket (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's modern sourcing that's been missed and actually does cover Harvey's role on the tour significantly. This includes a feature piece published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, multiple pieces covering his regret for his on-the-field actions during the time in England, and a piece in The Australian. There's also a recently published book that describes the article subject significantly. These, in addition to the sources in the article, show that there's WP:SIGCOV of Harvey's time in England during 1948 as a unique thing, so this article in particular seems notable. The article content is policy-compliant as far as I can tell; the content is verifiable, appropriately cited, not original research, and neutral. While it not the case that all articles on Australian cricketers who went to England in 1948 are de jure notable, the subject of this article is notable per WP:GNG—so much so that it's still getting coverage over seventy years later. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources justify a short (sub-)section in his biography article; they are not enough to not warrant a standalone article. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. The amount of sourced detail that's compliant with WP:PAG is not really going to be able to be merged into the main article without massively bloating the page (see: WP:PAGEDECIDE and Wikipedia:Article size), so I think that this fork makes sense. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree; what you are advocating would still violate WP:NOT (it does now). A short section would cover everything encyclopedic and would not cause any PAG issues in the main bio. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of WP:NOT does it violate? As far as I know, there isn't a WP:NOTDETAILED. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing that Mhawk10 has shared suggests that this is a keep to me - albeit an article which perhaps needs to be at least partly re-written. I could live with a merge if the alternative was to delete, but there seems to be more than enough detail to suggest that forking off the tour to its own article in this case is justified. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing really, really does not justify the level of detail in this article. The tour already has its own article, and so does Neil Harvey; the amount that is specific to their intersection and DUE is small enough that it would be better suited to either article rather than a standalone. Just looking at the tour recaps(*), the majority of the stats are cited to Cricket Archive rather than to secondary independent sources commenting on Harvey's performance specifically. A minority are basically just rephrasing Fingleton or Perry -- and I would argue that things that would normally be too trivial to proseify in a bio (e.g. detailed stats of particular matches -- we don't include those in-text unless they were especially noteworthy) should need at least two sources reporting them in prose to be DUE.
    (*)The early tour section sourcing goes:
    1. Cricinfo article on gentrifying the game (no mention of Harvey)
    2. CricketArchive (scorecard), Cricinfo (scorecard), CricketArchive (scorecard), Fingleton #1 (unknown)
    3. CricketArchive (sc, cited 2x), Fingleton #2 (unk.)
    4. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #3 (unk.)
    5. CricketArchive (sc)
    6. Fingleton #4 (unk.)
    7. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #4
    8. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #5 (unk.)
    9. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #6 (unk.)
    10. Perry #1 (unk.)
    11. CricketArchive (sc), CricketArchive (sc)
    12. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    13. Fingleton #7 (unk.)
    14. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    15. CricketArchive (sc)
    16. Cricinfo (sc) x5, CricketArchive (sc)
    17. Perry #2
    18. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    19. Perry #2
    20. CricketArchive (sc) x2, Perry #3
    21. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    22. Cricinfo (sc), CricketArchive (sc)
    23. CricketArchive (sc), CricketArchive (sc)
    I have no idea what is said in Fingleton or Perry, but if they're just giving essentially play-by-plays without specifically pulling out and discussing Harvey's performances (and I would say they should generally both be doing this for each piece of material) then it's clearly synthesis to include all these details. And if that's what the rest of the article is like as well, then we shouldn't have the article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing my opinion more on the sources which have been highlighted by Mhawk10 - the book, for example, which will, I assume, deal with the 1948 tour and Harvey's role in it, in some detail. Certainly that's the case in other cricket biographies I've read. As I said, the article may well need to be re-written to reflect the sources and the detail that we have now. It looks very much to me as if we now have much better sourcing than we did when this article was promoted to FA status. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:39, 28 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 03:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2008 United States presidential election[edit]

International reactions to the 2008 United States presidential election (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)

Per the same arguments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election. This is silly listcruft of mostly very routine WP:NOTNEWS-failing "reactions" which is more an abdication of the task of writing an encyclopedic article than a real attempt at doing so. This being split from the main article doesn't solve any problem, but simply moves it elsewhere. It's not even a good start from which to make a proper section for the parent article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:58, 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. ✗plicit 03:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's College, Enniskillen[edit]

St Joseph's College, Enniskillen (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:NSCHOOL. Hence, calling for an Afd discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this appears to be one of the better secondary schools in Northern Ireland. Manannan67 (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only comment since the last relist does not address any of Wikipedia's notability criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the school has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Manannan67 (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not give evidence why the school would be notable enough for inclusion. Everything is rather standard, with a principal doing nice things after his retirement. The Banner talk 16:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was principal for almost 25 years; presumably he had an effect on the place. Manannan67 (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be the case, but the school is not notable because what he did after retirement. The Banner talk 11:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has enough newspaper coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:02, 24 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 03:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taisei Irie[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only ref is stats-only in a database. Tagged for this April 26th with no subsequent changes. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 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. Star Mississippi 02:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shunsuke Sato (baseball)[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wpNotability under GNG or SNG. The only reference is stats-only in a database. Tagged for this since April 26 with no further development North8000 (talk) 02:24, 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 03:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abbottabad Airport[edit]

Abbottabad Airport (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:HOAX  – no such airfield, helipad or heliport named as "Abbottabad Airport" exists, nor existed before. Radioactive (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Pakistan. Radioactive (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would expect a city the size of Abbottabad (population over 240,000) to have at least a private or military airfield even though it has no airport with commercial service. I see lots of online sources claiming that IATA has assigned the code AAW and ICAO has assigned the code OPAB to this airport. I can't prove that this airport exists, but a lot of websites claim it exists, such as Flightradar24, AirportGuide, Skyscanner, and FlightAware. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metropolitan90 All these links are (I'll say) false positives, maybe got created in result of creation this Wikipedia page. There are a few helipads located in different parts of the city, like one in the Baloch Regiment HQ, one in the PMA, one in the ASPT etc. All these helipads are used occasionally, but most importantly none is called as/or can be classified as "Abbottabad Airport". Secondly there's no reliable link to verify existence of "Abbottabad Airport". Google search results for "Airport in Abbottabad", "Abbottabad Airport", "Military airport Abbottabad", "Army airport Abbottabad", "Private airport Abbottabad" and urdu translation of all these queries gave no useful and reliable result. Even AAW and Abbottabad searched on IATA official website, returned no result. Radioactive (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The fact that the IATA website itself has no knowledge of the supposed IATA code of this airport strongly suggests that the basic details of this alleged airport, and possibly the whole article, are made up. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with what Deeday-UK said. Craigwikiman (talk) 17:13, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mau Penisula[edit]

Mau Penisula (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) 02:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide sources that demonstrate WP:GNG has been met? @Ortizesp Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one here in particular, plus the various references on the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The others on the page are all trivial mentions and do not pass WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the BLOGPOST? That's what you call "significant coverage" from a "reliable source?" Seriously? Along with a bunch of primary match reports? Are you even trying here? Ravenswing 01:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have adequate sourcing that is indepdent of the subject and from reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The first reference on the page calls him a “Tuvaluan legend in Fiji”. This is 100% indisputably nontrivial coverage. This same user has nominated every Tuvaluan footballer for deletion (more than 50 in like 2 hours) and it is manifestly clear he did not even try to perform WP:BEFORE nor is it possible to in such a short period of time.172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reference 1 is clearly SIGCOV. WP:GNG states that "multiple sources are generally expected", which implies there can be exceptions to this rule. Given the extreme paucity of information about Tuvalu on the Internet, and the depth of coverage in the source we have, I think an exception is warranted here. Furthermore, looking at his awards section, it seems clear that he meets "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" in WP:BIO, which is not a hard rule, but I think provides more reason to keep in this case. EternalNomad (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. Reference 1 is literally a blog, and certainly not a reliable independent source, so it does not qualify as proof of notability to me, whereas all the others are just passing mentions. --Angelo (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no hard rule that I am aware of saying that blogs are always unreliable. In this specific case, the site has contact information and has been cited by Fiji Times [76] and MSN [77], so I think it crosses the threshold for reliability. 172.58.176.152 (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Contact information means anything; anyone can create a Facebook page. The guideline covering your second point is WP:USEBYOTHERS which states that the more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence (two mentions don't show much) and if outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, such as, for example, WP:BLP (which this is.) In any case, it doesn't really apply anyway because the Fiji Times is essentially just quoting from/paraphrasing an interview specifically rather than secondary reporting, in addition to using a photo, while the MSN article is literally just using it as a photo source. The few other Google News hits are similar, not really giving credibility. eviolite (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPSPS - "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Happy to help you out with that hard rule thing. Ravenswing 01:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The honors mentioned by EternalNomad are simply cups that his team has won (not awarded to him individually) and the Reference 1 that keep !voters mention is not a RS; it's a fan blog with no public editorial standards. It's also not really a secondary source as required for WP:NBIO; it's clear an interview was involved (primary per WP:NOR) and there are also possible elements of POV/promo (it's hard to view "His presence [...] can surely bring good things for the team" and "he would be a great addition for the Tuvaluan side" as neutral when he himself seems to have been a prominent source for the article). In any case, one questionable-at-best source and several trivial mentions aren't enough to pass GNG. eviolite (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added sources from Fenui News and Fiji Sun. It seems that his surname is also spelled "Peninsula", so that may help find more sources. EternalNomad (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So noted, but neither source comes remotely close to meeting WP:SIGCOV; they're casual mentions by way of routine match reporting. Do you have anything that constitutes "significant coverage" of the subject? Ravenswing 10:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I seem to recall a rule that if a footballer played for the national team or a professional team, then he qualifies. But I cannot find it anymore. Has this rule been retired? Craigwikiman (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the individual sports notability guidelines have been gutted, leaving WP:GNG as the standard. Jacona (talk) 17:47, 25 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) 09:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Adetona[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Adewale Adetona (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 does not meet WP:GNG. Sourced to sponsored posts. Princess of Ara 04:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Princess of Ara: I believe that this page should not be deleted because it has significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to work on the article as extensively as I'd like to; to prove it's qualification. I'd be glad if allowed more time to work on it and if the article is left to remain on the main wiki space for as long as it's being improved (and with a new tag that governs this new stance). The article is less than 24 hours old and as we know "many good articles start their Wiki life in pretty bad shape". I believe a talk page message outlining some improvements or a WP:TC tag is more appropriate than a deletion proposal. Please let me know if there are any specific guidelines that you'd like to see me improve upon in the upcoming days. Thank you for your help. Regards. Newliving (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 7 additional references to this article. @Princess of Ara: Take a look at your earliest convenience. Regards. Newliving (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not uncommon for brand influencers to have coverage is reliable sources. But Wikipedia will only consider those coverage that are independent and significant, and I am not seeing that. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe this article was nominated for deletion prematurely; as most of the objections have been improved upon. The sources that featured press releases or non-independent sources have been removed; thanks to the information left in some of these votes from more veteran editors. I welcome any improvement to the article and await a decision. Regards. Newliving (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] This is the page creator.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the creator's impovements which have not been addressed by those who voted before they were made
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article now only has 4 sources listed, not really notable. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple Google search reveals notability. Deletion votes that base their argument on the amount of sources that an article currently has are logically irrelevant; the next day it could have five sources, then the day after that seven. Research is still being done and sources are still being added; help appreciated via talk page. Newliving (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Assessed the 6 sources in the article viz;
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Vanguard Yes Yes Vanguard is generally reliable No Discusses his company; Menopays ✘ No
New telegraph Yes Appears so Yes News Telegraph is a generally reliable source No Mentions him in passing and discusses a conference he founded ✘ No
Vanguard No It is an interview Yes Vanguard is generally reliable No He discussed his company here ✘ No
Technext] No A sponsored post and an interview ? Couldn't find documentation of editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
ThisDay Yes Appears to be an independent coverage of an event Yes ThisDay is a reliable source No Passing mention ✘ No
BBC World Service No An interview Yes BBC is a reliable source Yes Discusses his work ✘ 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}}.
Princess of Ara 10:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is too weak for a living subject trying to make money. Newliving should be submitting sandbox entries to WP:AFC, not pushing them into main namespace. Is there an undeclared paid editing issue? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being paid to edit this article. Newliving (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The sources all display significant coverage. Newliving (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my view, this article might not have as much coverage on the search engine but for the fact that the organizations he pioneered and co-founded do, it should remain. Kambai Akau (talk) 01:43, 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. The sole keep vote makes no attempt to show bow the sources satisfy gng. Subsequent arguments provide strong reasoning why they don't. Involvement is small but consensus is to delete Fenix down (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samad Oppong[edit]

Samad Oppong (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 about non-notable footballer which doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. It appears that Oppong was a promising youth player (competed at the FIFA U-17 World Cup), but his career didn't pan out due to injuries and loss of form. He signed with some important African clubs (including Asante Kotoko and ES Sétif), but rarely if ever played in competitive matches for them per [78] and [79] (among others). Oppong was capped once by Ghana, but it was a substitute's appearance in a friendly where all of Ghana's squad were uncapped except Daniel Yeboah (who was a fringe player making his final appearance for the side). This probably explains why there isn't any significant coverage available online (just database entries, match reports, transfer announcements, etc.). Jogurney (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per Jogurney's rationale. The sources in the article are: 1 (deadlink; you have to search for it in archive): A mention in a list of Kotoko players and a one-sentence description; 2: 2 sentences of transfer news; 3 (deadlink and redirect to spam site; have to search in archive): Named in a roster, plus a sentence noting his contract hadn't been signed yet; 4: a single mention, without even his first name, noting his contract with ES Setif had been severed; 5: FIFA profile; 6: a deadlink that isn't archived; 7: a stats database. The ones at AfD are: 8 (ghanasoccernet): 5 very short sentences of un-bylined routine transfer news; 9: a slightly meatier (7 short sentences) transfer article from ghanasoccernet (but hosted by Modern Ghana), still lacking a byline and still not significant. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 23 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) 09:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidehi Taman[edit]

Vaidehi Taman (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)

Sourced entirely with brand posts, outlook spotlight, press releases and other paid coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:42, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srikumar Misra[edit]

Srikumar Misra (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)

Started by a blocked paid editor. Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GNG, or redirect to Srikumar Misra. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:44, 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 03:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Ayurveda[edit]

Kama Ayurveda (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 promo brand page. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:49, 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 03:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Achievers Award[edit]

Indian Achievers Award (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)

Sourced entirely with paid coverage/press releases. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:46, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Voice[edit]

Afternoon Voice (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 publication page created by a blocked paid editor User:Source Wide. Fails WP:GNG. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:40, 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeralean Talley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeralean Talley (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)

In the previous deletion discussion, people have discussed that she is known for her longevity. I think that there isn't anything special about this particular individual that makes her longevity unique. Interstellarity (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From a longevity point of view she is less notable than Gertrude Weaver whose article was deleted with a redirect but no mini-bio. Assuming WP:BIO1E trumps WP:GNG then the one event was "oldest living person" (which only applied for 2 months), and is insufficient to maintain a separate article. Redirect only if it is agreed she is worthy of a mini-bio at List of American supercentenarians. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of American supercentenarians#Biographies (create a mini-bio on it). There have been a number of examples of "merge" results in AfD so far, and this time it should be done as "merge" rather than completely delete. As a once WOP titleholder, this person is more prominent than anyone else who merged into "List of American supercentenarians" (like Barnice Madigan and Bettie Wilson). I personally like these articles, but I know English-version Wikipedia's standards in recent years seem to be strict so I will not vote for "keep".
If a lesser-notability person like Bettie Wilson (only world's 3rd oldest person at the death) is allowed to survive as a mini-bio in "List of American supercentenarians" page, then Jeralean Talley, clearly much notable than Bettie Wilson, is should at least survive as a mini-bio. Also, from my point of view, the Gertrude Weaver case should also have been merged into "List of American supercentenarians" rather than completely deleted, but the result was completely delete.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively: Bettie Wilson is even less notable than Talley and her mini-bio should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like she was discussed in depth in several sources. I'm not sure about the previous deletion discussion, as the nom mentioned, but in my opinion, being the oldest living person on the entire planet, is very notable. More notable than professional sports stars who have wiki articles . DerbyCountyinNZ's point about Gertrude Weaver is a good one and I think that policy should be re examined and perhaps Gertrude Weaver should be nominated again. PaulPachad (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Change my mind. She died in 5 years+ ago so sourcing will more difficult, but no reason to this page. Many reasons...one of reason is considering that the content is very long, merging is not suitable and keeping is reasonable. The key here is being validated as the oldest person in the world out of 7 billion people at a point and there are sufficient sources that verifies this. --Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I mean she was old, the article doesn't tell much about her other than straight, to the point facts. She got a letter from Obama, lovely. How many others got one? Not seeing notability from what's used as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:53, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_19&oldid=1090649343"