Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 22 May 24 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Jossifakis[edit]

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

This has some typical "impressive" sources which turn out to be problematic. Things like this from the "Seattle Daily Observer" or this from the "Denver Reporter" are pure promo pieces, for two "newspapers" without a presence on enwiki (bizarre if they were truly newspapers from these cities) and no indication why they, as local publications, would give this person so much glowing attention. Worse perhaps is this from "Worldwineinfocenter", bringing an article that doesn't mention wine even once. But, wow, it is written by "Jennyfer Smith Senior Journalist https://www.afp.com". Now, that is the website of Agence France-Presse, a very reputable news source, so this would be a clear indication of importance. Strange though how the only references I can find for a Jennyfer Smith working for AFP (as a "senior journalist"), are all for articles about Jossifakis: looking back, the "Denver Reporter" article is also written by her!

Whether he is notable or not (doubtful), the current article needs to be deleted as a promo piece (but not clear enough to just tag it as G11, some explanation was needed I think). And perhaps some of the sources so nicely presented should be blacklisted as they don't seem to be useful... Fram (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, and Canada. Fram (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the phenomenon you are describing is fake news black hat SEO sourcing. Compare hxxps://denverreporter.com/2cc3f0da33tid17-australia-has-a-new-left-leaning-government-here-s-what-you-need-to-know1 and hxxps://seattledailyobserver.com/724f0b784etid17-australia-has-a-new-left-leaning-government-here-s-what-you-need-to-know1 hxxps://worldwineinfocenter.com/60a45d936ctid17-australia-has-a-new-left-leaning-government-here-s-what-you-need-to-know1 . Undisclosed paid-for spam, creator blocked. MER-C 12:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete Anything "crypto" raises a red flag. I can only find a Digital Journal interview, I think it's him but it's about event planning. No reliable sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S6 (software)[edit]

S6 (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not meet WP:GNG. The original redirect should be restored: Special:Permalink/618783298. MarioGom (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the references provided on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, yes the article in question is quite short and definitely needs to be expanded, and reliable third party sources are needed, but these issues can be easily fixed and deleting this article is unnecessary,
Another Wikipedia user has provided links to a few other sources and documentation in Talk:S6_(software). 2603:7080:A903:F154:C5B5:865D:3F75:93DF (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are secondary. See WP:RS. MarioGom (talk) 20:57, 29 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 02:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Moral Boundaries[edit]

Book of Moral Boundaries (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 does not appear to be notable. The author is barely notable, and the book itself has not been extensively commented on to meet WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: References do not provide WP:SIGCOV --Whiteguru (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since this is a book, WP:NBOOK is the controlling guideline. These include reviews that were published by Cambridge University Press, International Philosophical Quarterly, Presses Universitaires de France (twice), Cairn, and others. The article has been cited ~8700 (according to Google Scholar), so I'm both surprised that nobody above found these references and sure that there are several more reviews that focus on the work. It's extremely clear that WP:BOOKCRIT#1 is met. The title here is not great, and it should probably be changed to "Moral Boundaries (book)", but deletion on that basis is weak. And, while there isn't all that much content, WP:DEL-CONTENT states that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. As such, it makes sense for the article on the book to be kept and expanded in light of these reviews. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "widely held" (667 academic libraries in the worldcat consortia + more outside). Also as per User:Mhawk10. I've taken the liberty of moving the article to match the title of the book. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 30 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 Legislative Assembly of Ulyanovsk Oblast or another location as decided on editorially. There is consensus against this existing as a standalone article. Star Mississippi 02:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chairmen of the Ulyanovsk Oblast Duma[edit]

List of chairmen of the Ulyanovsk Oblast Duma (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:NLIST with only 2 items, no reason for this article to exist. Gabe114 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 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 redirect to Drywall#Construction techniques Limited input, but valid AtD since the nom is fine with that, and no one is making an argument any other way. Star Mississippi 02:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dimpler[edit]

Dimpler (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)

Unsourced dictionary definition that doesn't merit a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Could be a one-sentence mention in Drywall#Construction_techniques. ZimZalaBim talk 20:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 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 and continue the conversation about the name editorially. Star Mississippi 02:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Danielson[edit]

Peter Danielson (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 pen name for a non-notable book series. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Literature. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've found some coverage of the series. One newspaper in particular fell all over themselves to cover quite a few of the series' books. However the coverage isn't so heavy that I feel super firm on this. I get the impression that there might have been more coverage, but I'm not 100% on that. My college's database picks up some hits from the NYT, but I can't view the articles to confirm if they're false hits or actually about the series. I figure I'll leave this up to the discussion to run how it will. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent sourcing improvements, but consider renaming to Children of the Lion which isn't even a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 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 23:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quran translations into Bengali[edit]

Quran translations into Bengali (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)

Too many issues. The "Comparison of the poetic translation of the Quran" section, besides not adhering to WP:RSUE, uses large parts of quotations of translated material, hence potential for copyvio, for the website as well as the page here. [This source https://archive.ph/ZbZ9E], on which the section relies upon, is likely unreliable anyways. The section "Translations in time line" is replete with unreliable sources like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] whenever it's not citing Kaler Kantho, on which the article is highly reliant upon (Kaler Kantho is cited 50+ times). The timeline is a mish-mash of Kaler Kantho's work plus some OR. - hako9 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI agree with deleting this. The English is incomprehensible and seemingly contradictory. A large portion of the article is useless for non-Bengali speakers. Belongs on the Bengali wiki. Zaynab1418 (talk) 09:18, 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 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C Svindland[edit]

Paul C Svindland (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)

Businessman who fails WP:BIO. While there are plenty of references in the article, none are satisfactory (various problems, including likely self-authored, PR, listings, short mentions, etc.) I don't see any significant coverage. Note also that the article was most likely written by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ginginie11/Archive) Pichpich (talk) 23:29, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Togavai Stanley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets WP:GNG see my argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaisua Liva (2nd nomination) NealeWellington (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To copy my response to your argument from there, neither the GNG, nor indeed any other notability guideline on Wikipedia, have opt-outs for a putative lack of sources. As has been demonstrated, there are indeed media outlets on Tuvalu. If those outlets do not provide the substantive coverage to a subject the GNG requires, the answer isn't that we should therefore ignore the GNG. The answer is that a Wikipedia article cannot be sustained on the subject, and it's rather breathtaking to suggest that a subject that blatantly does NOT meet the GNG really does, because, well, hrm, you want it to, because reasons. Ravenswing 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Can we get some semi-protection, as it appears that these articles for deletion pages are being targeted by someone out there? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    let's not feed the trolls, honestly they'll just move to other articles/afds. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but seeing as they are doing this nonstop must get boring after a while. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    well this conversation shouldn't be happening here but they've only hit this one once and no one is going to protect all AFDs. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone clarify the last for comments? Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: Alright, I'll stop here then. No point of dwelling on that, is there? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lutelu Tiute[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - This same user has nominated every Tuvulu footballer for deletion (and a few other mostly Oceania countries). The fact is, the reason we can’t find coverage is that the only major news outlet, Fenui News, is not online (it has a Facebook page but that page only gives summaries). A proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc. If there is still no coverage there, then fine, delete. But unless you did such research you are literally wiping out a nation’s sporting history just because they don’t have good internet access, which is unacceptable. A redirect until further research is fine as long as we don’t just wipe out his page. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop lying. I have not nominated "every" article. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. A proper WP:BEFORE involves going to a country's museums and libraries? Is the SPA deliberately trying to insult our intelligence? Ravenswing 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sosene Vailine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meauma Petaia[edit]

Meauma Petaia (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. Current reference in the article is a trivial mention at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, no good sourcing. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 18:50, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lopati Okelani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:43, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Lepaio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:39, 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. Star Mississippi 02:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Animal Police[edit]

Miami Animal Police (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)

Unsourced stub since 2010, mostly consists of OR. If there is a notable show under this, then WP:TNT Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Marrero, Diana (2004-01-07). "Job Holds an Animal Attraction for Police Team – Spotlight Focuses on Officers in New TV Series As They Help To Rescue Critters in Trouble". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

      The article notes: "This week, television viewers can join the unit's members as they tackle cases both routine and exotic on Miami Animal Police, a new series on the Animal Planet network. ... On the first show, wildlife expert Bob Freer is called out to the kitschy tourist attraction, Monkey Jungle, to remove an unwanted resident: an 8-foot gator who has outgrown his waterhole. ... On tonight's show, animal control officer Kathy Labrada faces a more unusual problem: a stray goat found in South Miami's business district with a package tied around its neck."

    2. Fleischman, Joan (2003-12-20). "Cable TV Show Hot on Trail of Animal Services". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

      The review notes: "On the prowl for nine months with Miami-Dade police: Animal Planet. Miami Animal Police, a TV series starring real Miami-Dade cops who work in Animal Services, premieres next month on the cable network. Among the highlights: Sgt. Charlie Daye, 40, Officer Lydia Marquez, 31, and animal control supervisor Kris Miller, 52, capture a four-foot alligator on the Palmetto Expressway during morning rush hour, causing a mega traffic jam. ... Other episodes: animal cruelty, and a foot chase of a bad guy with some mean yard dogs."

    3. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-05-13). "Pay TV - Saturday - Preview". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

      This is a 139-word review of the subject. The review notes: "A four-metre python is devouring neighbourhood pets and the Animal Police must catch it before it takes a small child! It's a great story, but not quite for the reasons this program's makers believe. They do get footage of a snake consuming a critter, but it's a look-alike python eating a defrosted duck."

    4. Sánchez, Valeria (2006-07-16). "Policía animal de Miami" [Miami Animal Police]. Palabra (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

      The review notes from Google Translate: "Hello, I'm back with a new report about these great heroes who are Recinto Miami (Miami animal police), they take care that in Miami there is no violence against animals and that they are well and do not suffer physical or mental abuse. ... I recommend you watch it, it's a great program that can help you understand why your dog growls at you and never hit an animal on the street."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Hedgpeth, Steve (2004-01-04). "Series of TV encounters in January". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

        The review notes: "This new Animal Planet series does not concern animals who police Miami, but rather human members of the Miami Dade Police Department Animal Services Unit. The unit handles some 2,500 calls a month, everything from alligators on the loose to pythons in public restrooms."

      2. Fonzo, Carla Di (2005-03-07). "The new gator aid spokesman - Celebrity animal investigator to speak at fund-raiser for Humane League". Intelligencer Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

        The article notes: "As one of the stars of Animal Planet's reality show "Miami Animal Police" (now airing in syndication Friday nights at 9), Daye patrols Miami-Dade County - a 2,000-square-mile area that includes Miami Beach and part of the Everglades - with his team of animal investigators. ... Daye said producers from Animal Planet (an affiliate of Discovery Networks) approached the offices of the Miami-Dade County police because of the success of the network's "Animal Cops" series, which was filmed in Houston and Detroit."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources identified above by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources above that Cunard has identified show that the subject passes WP:GNG. To respond to the nom's invocation of WP:TNT, WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that [d]isputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases and that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. The page is unsourced, but the sources presented in this discussion should be enough to source the content is what is now the lead; this is not a severe case of the entire article violating WP:NPOV and WP:MINREF. The section comparing and contrasting the show with Animal Cops: Miami should be blanked as WP:OR if no source can be provided to substantiate it. But this alone is not enough to establish that the TNT-threshold (i.e. the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history)) is met. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:18, 30 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taufaiva Ionatana[edit]

Taufaiva Ionatana (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) 22:38, 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 23:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ioane Haumili[edit]

Ioane Haumili (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) 22:35, 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 Speedy delete as hoax. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilled Antelope[edit]

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

This is an article for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed, and fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines: Reasons for deletion #7-8. Possibly #6 as well. See WP:DEL-REASON TNstingray (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For further context, I found this article while going down a cryptozoology rabbit trail. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this alleged creature, even within the cryptozoological sector (in other words, this is not an attempt to delete an article simply because I disagree with a creature's existence). All I can find are wiki pages that probably got their information from this article. No in-text citations are used, and I thoroughly examined the only source listed, which did not feature anything about the "Gilled Antelope." It was literally just a scientific description of the real, endangered Saola antelope. Any relevant information is already reflected on this page. A merger could potentially be problematic because I think this is falling in the same category as the notorious 2008 Wikipedia coati hoax, where the nickname "Brazilian aardvark" was given by a prankster, and the name persisted for six years. (See Reliability of Wikipedia). In summary, my vote is delete per the reasons listed in the original summary. This page could possibly be an example of Wikipedia:G3 to qualify for speedy deletion, but I won't list that for certain since I do not necessarily have proof for or against this measure. TNstingray (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedy deleted it -- Having scanned the purported source, and checked Wikipedia Library, I agree it's a blatant hoax. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atantaake Tooma[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Atantaake Tooma (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) 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He played football internationally. Kiribati has no online news outlet that I know of, so it’s virtually impossible for him to get online coverage regardless of achievement. By this logic every person from Kiribati should be deleted (as well as from like dozens of other small countries). This is an incredibly dangerous precedent. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "He played football internationally" is not a valid reason to keeping an article. Please read WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. Ravenswing 00:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia articles need to be built on sources. We do not have adequate sourcing to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiteone Kairoronga[edit]

Kiteone Kairoronga (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) 22:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He played football internationally. Kiribati has no online news outlet that I know of, so it’s virtually impossible for him to get online coverage regardless of achievement. By this logic every person from Kiribati should be deleted (as well as from like dozens of other small countries). This is an incredibly dangerous precedent. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "He played football internationally" is not a valid reason to keeping an article. Please read WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. Ravenswing 00:39, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tokabi Kaiorake[edit]

Tokabi Kaiorake (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) 22:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He played football internationally. Kiribati has no online news outlet that I know of, so it’s virtually impossible for him to get online coverage regardless of achievement. By this logic every person from Kiribati should be deleted (as well as from like dozens of other small countries). This is an incredibly dangerous precedent. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "He played football internationally" is not a valid reason to keeping an article. Please read WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. Ravenswing 00:38, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Taitai[edit]

Paolo Taitai (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) 22:08, 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 keep. Sources provided counter nom and vote citing nom. Star Mississippi 02:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Worst Animal Nightmares[edit]

Your Worst Animal Nightmares (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 Common Sense Media review, but sourcing is minimal otherwise Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Camacho, Melissa (2022-02-24). "Your Worst Animal Nightmares. TV review by Melissa Camacho, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

      The review notes: "The show is pretty violent, with frequent scenes of people being chased, attacked, bitten, and/or eaten alive. Victims (many of whom are the actual attack survivors) are shown screaming in fear and pain, throwing up, and having other panicked reactions. Some of these moments are replayed several times in a single segment in order to make the story even more shocking."

    2. Barrett, Annie (2009-05-28). "'Your Worst Animal Nightmares': So, what's yours?". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

      The review notes: "The description for last night’s premiere of Your Worst Animal Nightmares: “Camp Terror; Blood Bath.” That sounded enticing so I had to watch. Animal Planet’s new docudrama series does not make people’s hypothetical worst nightmares happen. The subjects are actual victims and the show jumps from news footage of their real-life accidents (crocodile attacks Australian campers; Great White Shark “silently stalks” four teens) to interviews with the victims and their families. But the bulk of the air time involves really, really, really horrific dramatizations of the accidents themselves."

    3. Kidd, Rob (2011-08-29). "Waiting for a nightmare that never comes". Waikato Times. p. 10. ProQuest 887537045.

      This is a 400-word review of Your Worst Animal Nightmares. The review notes: "I continue to wait. Eight minutes to go. Graphic bloodshed is coming, this is Your Worst Animal Nightmares after all. "As I near the shallower water I cast a look over my right shoulder and saw the shark veer away from the jagged inshore rocks," he says.  Seriously? That's it? The extent of his "nightmare" was a minor self-inflicted knife wound? Harrowing. But wait, that's not all. Morris has nightmares about the ordeal and eventually goes to Australia to conquer his fear by swimming with sharks while he's in a cage. As the sixth episode in the series I can only assume things are going to get worse. Apparently the next episode is about a woman who gets dog saliva on her new jacket."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Hopwood, Malcolm (2010-09-21). "Tragedies must take their time". Manawatū Standard. p. 10. ProQuest 755014157.

        The article provides 65 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Your Worst Animal Nightmares (TV3, Mondays) depicted 18-year-old Nick Peterson being attacked by a Great White shark off the South Australian coast. It was long on reconstruction and short on education. I waited for a lesson on "how to avoid being eaten" but it never came, though Nick's family and friends will live with the horror of his death for the rest of their lives."

      2. Byrnes, Holly; Grant, Sarah (2008-08-23). "Sydney Confidential". The Daily Telegraph. p. 29. ProQuest 359763007.

        The article notes: "Stainton (pictured), who witnessed Irwin's death in a stingray attack in September 2006, is now filming Your Worst Animal Nightmares, for The Discovery Channel.  While the series will feature dramatic re-enactments of highly-publicised animal encounters, Stainton has stated he will stay away from Irwin's fatal end on the Great Barrier Reef. ... The pilot, which featured the headlined story in 2005 of a young mum who jumped on top of a crocodile north of Cooktown to save her son's friend, impressed TV executives for its sympathetic treatment of the animal."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:50, 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. Sources have been confirmed to exist. TPH, I'm not going to tone police you, but this sub-conversation is not productive. You're welcome to add the sources yourself as well. Star Mississippi 02:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking On Tyson[edit]

Taking On Tyson (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 sources, but they don't seem to be much in the way of WP:SIGCOV. Searches found only false positives or TV Guide listings. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:37, 23 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?) 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in article are sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG at the very least. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess what, more press releases. The fact that the Associated Press will write about literally TV show if you throw enough money their way is not an indicator of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not press releases. Again, press releases are written by the makers, not independent news agencies. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They were written because the maker of the show told them to write X words gushing about how good the show is. That's still a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Where is your proof that these are paid promotions? Provide facts to support these statements. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "blah blah blah ASSOCIATED PRESS" is all the proof I need. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Purely your opinion. No different than conservatives in the US saying CNN isn't true and liberals in the US saying FOX News isn't true. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You think the AP is a paid promotion agency? matt91486 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- sources meet the GNG an are not, as mistakenly argued above, press releases but are secondary coverage. matt91486 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional sources on page 2 of google results: [9], [10], [11], [12]. This well exceeds the GNG. Also, for the record, a press release about the show does in fact exist, and it can be found here: [13]. matt91486 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course, these sources will just magically add themselves to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A. I added one to the article before posting them. B. You know very well that AfD is about demonstrating sources *exist*. This has done so. matt91486 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the same cycle every time:
    1. Article is nominated for deletion
    2. Several people in AFD find sources
    3. AFD closes as keep
    4. No one ever adds sources to article; article is still an unsourced stub 15 years later
    5. Lather rinse repeat
    Break the cycle. Add the damn sources yourself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to reform the entire AfD process, you are welcome to try to initiate that elsewhere, but this is not the appropriate place for that discussion. AfD is about demonstrating the subject of the article is notable. These sources easily do that. matt91486 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why aren't they in the article, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps the cycle could be broken within the policies and guidelines, respecting WP:NEXIST, instead of trying to overrule consensus by deleting articles that are WP:N. Deletion is not cleanup. There are many ways to improve articles, including various cleanup mechanisms and fixing it yourself. We are all wasting a lot of time and energy here. Deleting the crap is very important, but spending time nominating, defending, and arguing over articles that are notable for cleanup reasons is a huge negative to the project. Jacona (talk) 11:44, 30 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 23:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people on the postage stamps of Ecuador (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 "list of people on the postage stamps of X" that suffers the same problem as the others: unsourced, unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Ecuador. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the first Wikipedia article I have seen sourced only to pintrist. That is not a good sign. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscrminate listing of everything, and that is what a list like this would lead us towards being. We really need to cut out philatelycruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people on the postage stamps of Argentina (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 "list of people on the postage stamps of X" that suffers the same problem as the others: unsourced, unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Argentina. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks any sources, let alone sources that show that this grouping is a signifcant grouping. We really need to cut back on philatelycruft in Wikipedia. There are also way too many articles on people that just say that they signed the role of notable stamp collectors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (This vote of course is meaningless since the decision to delete has already been made). Book indexes and Wikipedia lists are both very similar. They provide quick ways to search for information in a large "collection". No-one would ever dare to remove an index section from a non-fiction work. The work would become almost useless and impossible to search. Wikipedia lists could provide the same function. The issue of "notability" has been raised. Are lists "NOTABLE"? Probably not. Are lists "USEFUL"? Highly.

Wikipedia started in 2001. The embryo of Lists of People on Postage Stamps (LPPS) started in 2002 and has been added to sporadically over the last 20 years. Philately is a hobby so updates occurred once in a while as collectors chose to enhance the data. I chose to update Central and South America in 2013 and was doing the same in 2022. I followed the format and content developed over 20 years. I believed that it had been vetted and approved before I started my updates. Hundreds of volunteers have dedicated thousands of hours to creating and maintaining these lists. Obviously there is no point in continuing.

For some reason, this particular set of lists (LPPS) seems to have galled users Fram, Johnpacklambert, and TenPoundHammer to the point where they have initiated a complete purge of the list tree. One of them actually referred to the lists as "philatelykruft". (I assume "kruft" is Newspeak for Bovine Fecal Matter). There was no round table discussion on how to improve the articles. There was no call for volunteers to work on changes or improvements. There was no effort to make the list more "notable" (a highly vague concept). Instead a major purge has been started. Further discussion is meaningless in AfDs since the purge effort is in full swing.

Thank you to all of the stamp collectors who built the lists over the years (although you may never see my thanks!!!). I had enough notice that I was able to take copies of many of the files for my personal use. I am saddened that so much effort is being destroyed. Good bye Bill Blampied (talk) 22:45, 30 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 23:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people on the postage stamps of Bhutan (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 "list of people on the postage stamps of X" that suffers the same problem as the others: unsourced, unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just found that stub and added to it. It exists for other countries as well. I thought it not really useful, although for some countries social scientists have examined the people on postage stamps to make some analysis of the society as a whole, especially historidal or political figures on stamps responding to the government in charge at a certain time. But a list without further comments indeed does not bring much addition to the philatelic information of a certain country, while a short comment like "in those and those periods especially political and historial local persons figured on the postage stamps issued during those times" (if there is any ref available) in the main philatelic page for a country (Postage stamps and postal history of xxx) will do. Best regards. PS: if there is no ref available, I have the habit to write an article in a philatelic magazine on the topic, so I have a ref :-) Leovdvxxx (talk) 09:24, 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 23:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people on the postage stamps of Belize (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 "list of people on the postage stamps of X" that suffers the same problem as the others: unsourced, unmaintained, unverifiable, erroneous, you name it. Prod contested because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Player (2004 TV series)[edit]

The Player (2004 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)

Only one source found. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Player" isn't merely unscripted; it's virtually unwatchable. Hollywood Reporter
  • What "The Player" represents, I'm sorry to say, is one more clog in the current prime-time TV cesspool. New York Daily News
  • Hate nearly everything about this ridiculous waste of time. Even if you can't quite care enough to despise it, there's so much to dislike about UPN's leap into... Chicago Sun-Times
  • LACTOSE-intolerance warning: "The Player," UPN's new reality show, is so cheesy that all you need is macaroni for a complete dinner. New York Post
Hardly overly positive. WikiVirusC(talk) 11:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources provided are sufficient for GNG. matt91486 (talk) 14:22, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 by Bbb23. ✗plicit 23:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Spain of Juan Carlos I in 2022[edit]

Return to Spain of Juan Carlos I in 2022 (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 think that this specific incident deserves its own page, as it centers on events arguably less notable than those already on Juan Carlos I. Accordingly, I propose either a delete or a merge. Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:59, 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. Consensus is sourcing is sufficient to counter 1E concerns, regardless of whether that should apply in Oulson's case or not. Star Mississippi 02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Chad Oulson[edit]

Death of Chad Oulson (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)

Completly generic and mediocre. Fails WP:GNG, scope_creepTalk 20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • im on the road, but this is one of the more notorious shootings of the decade. There will be literally hundreds if not thousands of sources. If this is still out here later, I’ll post a few.Jacona (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep There are many, many sources available, I'll give you three for now. There is in-depth WP:SIGCOV. It is not just local in nature, it's covered around the United States. Let's start with this, [17], in the New York Times, which was in the article at the time of the nomination. But sources don't have to be in the article to prove WP:N, they just have to WP:NEXIST. And in this case, anyone with access to the internet is going to find a huge number of articles providing WP:SIGCOV. Here's a 2014 front page Tampa bay times article in two parts [18],[19] when Curtis Reeves was first released after 7 months. Here's a February 2016 article from Orlando [20] during the trial. Oh, wth, here's a bonus (#4) from Eau Claire, Wisconsin [21]. Reading WP:GNG and touching on the highlights; this coverage is significant, the sources are reliable, they are secondary, they are independent of the subject. While the coverage is concentrated in 2014 and 2022, I found articles in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2022. I found them not only in Tampa, but all around Florida, in Texas, in the NYT, Baltimore, and other locales. This subject meets WP:GNG, and it does so resoundingly. Jacona (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to use the WP:NEXIST argument on articles that was created in 2014. It is smoke and mirrors and has no bearing on here. It is a death that has been reported, but it is common, so generic and really quite mediocre as an article, that happens every day in the US. There is not one thing that makes it notable. The New York Times has a duty of care to report shootings as does most newspapers, but that doesn't make it notable. The rest of the papers are the same. Wikipedia isn't a news reporting channel or some kind of affiliate for this type mediocrity. The actual event is so shocking, it is beyond belief relief really, but that doesn't make it notable either. All the coverage, is all WP:BLP1E. He was not notable beforehand nor was the shooter. scope_creepTalk 08:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals." This is not a biography of a person, and if it were, the person died 8 years ago, so WP:BLP1E is irrelevant. Further, BLP1E states if applies only if "the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." This event was significant, in part because of the invocation of the controversial Florida "stand your ground" law. It has been very well-documented, not just when it happened, but revisited regularly for the last 8 years. BLP1E simply does not apply. WP:GNG however, does apply, and the article meets it. Jacona (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does everybody always roll that out. That applies here. Everything comes from that event. All the news. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You quote BLP1E in one breath and deny it in the next. WP:BLP1E states "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people", so that argument has zero application here. We have many articles, such as Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, Death of Caylee Anthony, Murder of Botham Jean that stem from one event in which a persons life was ended and in each of these case sthe article is about the event, not the person. That is exactly the case here. Jacona (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are likely non-notable and will take a look at them. They are daily occurences in the United States. Both of the people were involved in this event, were non-notable before. All the coverage comes the event making it a classic WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is filling with crime reports that are generic and mediocre to the extreme. scope_creepTalk 22:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://www.tampabay.com/news/2022/02/26/after-acquittal-curtis-reeves-renews-freedom-chad-oulsons-widow-grieves-anew/
  2. https://abc13.com/curtis-reeves-florida-movie-theater-shooting-chad-oulson-popcorn/11635640/
  3. https://globalnews.ca/news/3303073/florida-theatre-texting-murder/
  4. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/29/florida-stand-your-ground-defense-movie-theater-shooting

It seems like exactly the type of event that should be included as per WP:NEWSEVENT CT55555 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just today, there was a 12 paragraph article in the Tampa Bay Times, an article at yahoo, abc, and plenty more about the Oulson family foundation. The coverage is widespread and ongoing. Jacona (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a few words to the article, and lots of sources, providing easy material for someone who would like to expand it, not that it's hard, since there are literally tens of thousands of sources available online. Jacona (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applying the guideline to my previous discussion, (plus mention of book cites). In addition, there are a couple of book cites, including a multi-page discussion in a textbook The American System of Criminal Justice. This demonstrates notability as per the inclusion criteria the appropriate guideline, which looks for lasting effects (a college textbook certainly does). The guideline also prefers a wide geographical scope (there is local, national, and international coverage), depth, duration, and diversity of coverage (this has front-page news articles galore, book sections, etc over a course of over 8 years). In response to the nominators invoking of one event, the guideline specifically addresses one event as follows "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." That's exactly what has been done here. Jacona (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is all due to the foundation that has been lauched this week and they were looking for publicity. All of it comes from one event. scope_creepTalk 10:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every "Death of..." article is about one event. That's not a reason to delete. WP:EVENTCRIT directs us to consider:
  1. WP:LASTING did the event lead to something else? I think that's not 100% clear yet, but the court case appeal seems to be president setting, so it has that potential and absolutely significantly more likely here than the way you described it in the nomination "Completly generic"
  2. WP:GEOSCOPE is coverage was local or not. It was international, so very notable by criterion #2
  3. WP:INDEPTH is the coverage deep. It absolutely is.
  4. WP:PERSISTENCE does the coverage continue for time. We're years into this, it absolutely meets this criterion.
  5. WP:DIVERSE is there a range of sources, there absolutely is.
There are 5 variables to consider in deciding if an event is notable and this event utterly meets 4 of them and maybe meets the fifth.
I sometimes argue marginal cases at AfD, but this one is really very clearly meeting the criteria. CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to keep changing your argument. You posting a press-release on the launch of the foundation to prove a point, is the beyond the pale. You also seem to be confusing the families effort to keep event into the news , to bring some kind of meaning and memory to it, Hence the reason for the foundation, with Wikipedia policies around notability and need to report events.There is nothing here that is notable. The event as it happens is completely generic and mediocre. So far in the last year, I have seen 3 of these, so they are happening all the time. They are generic and so mediocre. If it goes to no consensus and that seems to be what your trying to do, without providing a cogent argument why this particular WP:BLP1E event is notable and the policies, then any chance I get I with send it to afd and try and delete it. I see nothing special or unique about this that makes it standout. scope_creepTalk 14:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of acting "beyond the pale" was truly unexpected and I would be happy if you could withdraw that. I promise you that I'm acting in good faith, within normal ethical and moral boundaries, and consider my behaviour here to be within acceptable norms.
I don't think I've shared a press release. I shared links to four newspaper articles, but if I have shared a press release, please be specific where I did so.
I don't agree with your analysis about the family's efforts, what ever they are or are not doing it really not part of my thinking or argument here. I think the importance of the court case and the public interest in self defence law in USA is really what's driving years of international media attention. But I don't think the reasons behind this are important, things meet the general notability guidelines or they don't.
I think I have demonstrated clearly that this meets the general notability criteria and please note while participation in this discussion has been limited, everyone else other than yourself agrees to keep.
I don't understand your point about me trying to steer this towards no consensus. I'm arguing to keep. I think the argument for that is really clear.
I don't know what to say about your comments about planning to take this to AfD, when we're literally at AfD.
If we could continue this discussion with civility and without personal accusations, I would be welcome and will continue. If that is not possible for you, you might see silence from here from here. CT55555 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The text of BLP1E makes it clear it is irrelevant in this discussion but since an editor continues to refer to it, I feel it necessary to quote the policy in a greater length: "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals." It's been 8 years, so we should be looking at WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E. Jacona (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the points raised by editors above. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @User:scope_creep, is the three page section of a law textbook just routine coverage? Jacona (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The case is a landmark trial. Tampa defense attorney Richard Escobar referred to the case as "the largest self-defense case ever in Florida". Janae Thomas, a Tampa-based attorney and former assistant state attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County said "It's going to open the flood gates for these stand-your-ground cases because now we're going to say that people can go into public places, they can be armed, they can start a confrontation because that's what the evidence shows". Harvard University professor Caroline Light stated "This means more people with guns, seeing a certain right to use lethal aggression, and then say, after the fact, that they were in fear for their life". It is unique, in that Reeves felt he was in danger due to only popcorn being thrown in a very dark theatre, but that because of his age, that he felt threatened enough to shoot Oulson. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We're in WP:SNOWBALL keep territory at this point and I politely request that the nominator withdraw the AfD rather than labour this debate any longer. CT55555 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iliyan Kuzmanov[edit]

Iliyan Kuzmanov (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 businessman and philanthropist who has won a non notable prize and opened a cafe in a railway station. Sources are mostly either not independent or not reliable (I’m not sure about “Telegram”). Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Appears to be involved with small businesses, small support organizations, etc. Award mentioned is part of a purchased book review service. Nothing here to indicate WP:GNG is met. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my opinion to strong delete - I'd tag for speedy if we weren't already here. I'll also note that the Bulgarian version was speedied in 2021 and is tagged with concerns for sourcing as well (according to Google Translate, at least). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is non sense guys! Iliyan is a super star in Bulgaria and London Uk, what is wrong with you, just check google! Probably some kids were playing with his page, but he is a Very Big One here! By the way he made a WOW in Turkey as well. Moreover he is helping Ukrainianes and is hated by the Russian propaganda machine. Why you dont check that! Marko Kralev (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— Marko Kralev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    илиян кузманов - Google Търсене
    He is a real political hero in our country that is tretened by Russia! Marko Kralev (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— Marko Kralev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Check the Gogle in Turkey guys! He is very famous and good guy. He is anti- comunist in his bones, who do a lot of good! Marko Kralev (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— Marko Kralev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Because of Turkey, the premiere he did there, the name he made there, his origine- he is hated by the Russian propaganda in Bulgaria! But he is loved by most people in Bulgaria! StoyanUbenov (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The long hand of Putin... but he is very brave man! Marko Kralev (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— Marko Kralev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    One things concern me very much in this article. Why the guy who created the original mess is not here to provide explanations. It is very strange, because originally the page has nothing common with the Bulgarian Page. Even there are thousands of sources, the guy was using few fakes. It was very strange, and now is even more strange. It was looking as a joke with Iliyan, but now... And yes, what is the problem with the biggest medias in EU, owned by the US medias? DorraG (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— DorraG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hello, I do not know who made this article(it looks as anti- advertising by someone who does not like the author), but Iliyan Kuzmanov is the most famous Bulgarian writer and social enterpreneur in this moment! He is a social enterpreneur who is fighting coruption, human trafficing, domestic violence, gender aquality, and freedom of though, he is a real hero in Bulgaria! Please let me help improve this article. By accident I discover this mess, but deffinetly was made by someone who does not like the writer. He is victimise by the Russian propaganda in Bulgaria, because of helping the LGDP comunity and Ukrainian refugees. I am his huge fan, and I willingly help to corect the injustice. Here is his Bulgarian Wikipedia Page:
Илиян Кузманов – Уикипедия (wikipedia.org)
https://bg.wikipedia.org/ StoyanUbenov (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment - The edit you have done on the article has actually worsened its condition. There are some serious problems with sourcing; let's look at a few that really stand out (the English ones; my Bulgarian is nonexistent). Ref 2 is some sort of blog, no byline, and very glowing, almost as if self-written. 11 is a fake newspaper - one of those ones that pretends to be something big and sells coverage; the editor they list doesn't appear to exist. 26 is a press release. 44... honestly, what the hell. FilmDaily appears to be trash, probably paid service; coverage of the award is by fake sites that are certainly paid services (and they all misspell Hemingway). 45 is also almost certainly paid - it is exactly the same structure as the coverage of the FilmDaily awards, and has similar wording. All in all, this is almost certainly an attempt to buy notability for this subject. Thank you, though, for providing more evidence for us to consider. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, I did a 100% translate of the Buglarian wiki. And was using all the sources from there. I will provide all the national medias that are missing in the bulgarian article. The guy was on and on on tv and newspapers, I know his work from my hometown. Take into account that Bulgaria is with one of the worst corruption ratios, and people like this one are like rare gems here.... StoyanUbenov (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
https://bnt.bg/news/iliyan-kuzmanov-parviyat-balgarin-v-klasaciyata-top-20-na-amazon-s-knigata-si-ako-sreshtnesh-buda-ubiy-go-razshirena-versiya-v313346-302151news.html
https://bntnews.bg/news/sreshta-s-balgarskiya-pisatel-dostignal-top-20-po-prodazhbi-na-amazon-1179647news.html
https://bnr.bg/play/post/101577367/ilian-kuzmanov
https://bnr.radio/horizont/post/101585075/ilia-kuzmanov-pomaga-na-jeni-jertvi-na-nasilie
https://nova.bg/news/view/2022/01/29/354124/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%8A%D1%82-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB-amazon/
https://www.btv.bg/shows/predi-obed/videos/koj-e-naj-seksapilnijat-pisatel-v-sveta.html StoyanUbenov (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
These are National Tv Networks and National Radio Stations. Will replace the weak sources. And will be happy for assistance. I donn't know who did the original page, but was a real mess. The guy is helping thousends of people. StoyanUbenov (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you provide any reference that explains the Top 20 Amazon rank? Because he's currently in the mid-118,000s on Kindle (it's only available as an e-book, looks like), but is higher in a few of the e-book subgenres. Every article where it's mentioned only says "Top 20" but doesn't say what top 20. Also, I'm still very concerned that most of the English coverage of the subject is in paid-placement sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, in the sources is BNT, NTV and BTV- the 3 major National Networks in Bulgaria. There is Tv Evropa, that is Euronews now, the major EU tv network, with around 300 milions subscribers. In the sources mentioned here is BTA- Bulgarian Telegraph Agency, the bigest Balcan Info Network, milions of people around the world are using it, Reuters is major partner. BNR and Darik are the bigest radio networks around. All of them speaks about it. Maybe they all did fact checks or checked with Amazon, what do you think? These are the bigest and most influential medias, most owned by major Western companies. Or maybe you are well informed than all them. I really do not understand what is happening here, really bizare issue. Moreover to not believe to all these medias and to be so determinent in blaming someone. Really no words! Check Google Bulgaria, check Google Turkey- 10 ot Thousends sources, about a real hero, and here someone is trying to make a joke from him. StoyanUbenov (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's all great, but absolutely none of the sources I've seen have mentioned the actual metric being measured. They all say "Top 20 on Amazon." His book is currently #1,119,423 in the Kindle Store; to go from top 15 to that in the space of several months is a pretty big fall, so I can only assume that it made the top 20 in one of the subcategories; I know that on one viewing of the page it was #37 in 'teen philosophy e-books' or somesuch. This is the challenge - we have extraordinary claims being made, but the sourcing is very concerning, simply because there are a lot of obviously paid-for articles in the English sphere. I again can't speak to Bulgarian sources, but I am going to encourage more eyes to review them. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you assume one of the sources was crap, the other probably was paid... Now you assume that all the rest of the medias are biassed, even Euronews and Reuters. I am speachless man. By the way, Euronews, NTV and BTV said, yes 15 in Top 20, that means your Bulgarian or Russian is preaty good, congratulations!
And you dont mention the print medias, newspapers in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Turkey, 45, 000 results with the name Илиян Кузманов, probably you assumed that all is paid? The guy probably is a richer than Musk to make such PR. And helping so many people, thousend of reffugees, women victims of traffic, prisons, homeless.... and you assume that all that is paid and not real? Increadible assumptions you are making! But again, congratulations for your Russian or Bulgarian language skills, initially you didnt have at all! StoyanUbenov (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Assume good faith in dealing with other editors, please. I'm not assuming anything of the Bulgarian sources you've provided, because I can't read them beyond using Google to translate the pages. I also haven't made any claims that he hasn't helped people, because again I can't read or understand beyond machine translation of some of the sites you provided. The sources that I have seen, the English sources that are available, are significantly, in my opinion and drawing on years of experience on Wikipedia, paid promotion. If you would like to cast further aspersions on my motives, please feel free. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Fox, if you assume good faith, you have to take into account few things, but you are really determined to not:
1. There is a protocol for existing page translations- and the page was translated(after the effort of someone unknown to make harm to one of the famoust bulgarian social enterpreneurs and writers).
2. 45, 000 results in Google about the name Илиян Кузманов, among them some of the bigest medias in EU and Turkey
3. From those 45, 000 sources, strangely, someone choose few, not very credible, 5 or 6 to be honest. Strangley why targeted them. And you make assumptions, that they are paid. But how about the rest 44, 995?
4. You point few things, that in your opinion, but not in the opinion for example of Euronews and Reuters, with more than a billion readers is fact checked information. And how about all the rest- the guy on first place is famous with his good deeds to society. Even his book in Bulgaria is for free, and copyright claims, because of the Pandemic and Economic Crisis now? He did whay more to change my society for good. And Wikipedia core is that?
5. Why no wonder, who made the original article, and why was made in such a way? Moreover, for example the Russian propaganda that is going around, and the trouble Iliyan had with Russian mafia, for example in London Uk(there are many articles about that). Even his second book is inspired by a russian prostitute he felt in love, and he got in a lot of problems. Why no questions about that? Because in my opinion, it was very strange. StoyanUbenov (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)— StoyanUbenov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
From the looks of the article history, the article was created by someone who brought it over from .bg, but edited down. I don't know why it's being called problematic, it looks pretty similar to what's there now, just shorter.
As for the rest of your comments, my opinion stands: versions of this article have included references to paid marketing material, which, in my opinion, calls into question other sourcing; and the subject in question does not meet notability guidelines for authors. It is for other editors to take my comments, your comments, and the article as a whole and make their own decisions as to the suitability of this article for this encyclopedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that someone from the editors to take into the account, and look deeper the original article that was created by someone who disappeared from his "good work" according to Tony Fox. I hope also in assume good faith, someone will look all comments, from the first to the last of Tony Fox, who is doubting everything, but not the person who created the original. How from thousands and thousands different sources about a person with hundreds good deeds, someone took few not very credible sources, and created this whole issue. I hope that the most important in Wiki community is about our contribution to the society, and started with the idea about contributing society. And in this good spirit, lets be honest. DorraG (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)— DorraG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please, it is an urban myth about the Russian escort and that he felt in love! The problems came when he destroyed a Russian human traffic network in Bulgaria.
Проектът "Мария": Жителите на Калугерово получиха сертификат... (marica.bg)
Сама, без багаж и в кръв... Мистериозната Мария в с. Калугерово - Последни Новини от DNES.BG
Окървавена латвийка се появи мистериозно в Калугерово, вероятно е жертва на трафик на хора - Общество (offnews.bg)
It was one very big case, there are a lot of info about it in the Polish and Latvian medias as well. Marko Kralev (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)— Marko Kralev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That is really great. From everything was paid, we went to what exactly place in Amazon,... and questionig the honesty of such big medias...by the way BTV was part of FOX Network, and NTV now is a part of UK group, that owns medias in many countries around the globe.
And why you don't ask the guy who created that nonsense initially? Why was created such "funny" article about such controversial figure now in Bulgaria? Who is targeted by the Russian propaganda. Iliyan is a journalist, writing about very interesting topics. Maybe really someone has to question the author of the article. Marko Kralev (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— Marko Kralev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Guys, I don't know what is happening here, but Iliyan Kuzmanov is the most famous Bulgarian author now and a person who fight corruption and help a lot of people. You could check google:
https://www.google.bg/search?q=%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BD+%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2&sxsrf=ALiCzsbtCkN7656ZnHY47awuw965j970yw%3A1653415950411&source=hp&ei=DiCNYqz2FfaXxc8Pp9KP0AI&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYo0uHvTH_SMyUCtDwmVIc2zBNmVFpSzr&oq=%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BD+&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIFCC4QywEyBQgAEMsBMggILhDUAhDLATIFCC4QywEyCAguENQCEMsBMgUIABDLATIFCAAQywE6BwgjEOoCECc6BQguEJECOgUIABCRAjoFCAAQgAQ6CwguEIAEEMcBEKMCOggILhDUAhCRAjoLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwE6CAguEIAEENQCOgUILhCABDoJCC4QgAQQChAqOgcILhCABBAKOgcIABCABBAKOgcIIxCxAhAnOgcILhAKEMsBOgcIABAKEMsBOgoILhDUAhAKEMsBOgQILhAnUIAMWKI7YL1HaAdwAHgAgAHFAYgB0QySAQQxLjExmAEAoAEBsAEK&sclient=gws-wiz DorraG (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— DorraG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hello everyone, I also discovered this article by chance. Iliyan is my favorite journalist and writer in Bulgaria. He is big social entrepreneur, person with heart and soul who is a real life changer for a lot of people. Please, allow me to help enhance the article that looks really unprofessional! DorraG (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)— DorraG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would like to summarise what I saw in this article.
1. It was made not well sourced very purposeful article by someone, who just manipulate the info, and even did not defend what he did. The purpose was clear to diminish the social role of Iliyan Kuzmanov, or even blackmail him with such biased information and compromised sourced(5 or 6), nevertheless that there are thousands of sources, some of which are all major Bulgarian medias, and some of the big EU medias. But obviously the purpose of the author was not in the good faith and good intentions of Wikipedia.
2. Advocates of the author work- please read all the comments, and all the arguments. Please also read, how Iliyan Kuzmanov lost his social business in London, why, the involvement of the Russian Mafia and ect. I will include a lot of sources at the end. The involvement of Iliyan in many criminal cases in Bulgaria, his ability to solve and help women victims of human trafficking, and always the Russian lead. Please take into account his last causes, his help to Ukrainian immigrants, his talks about the corruption in Bulgarian. And please ask the question, why someone was victimised, and the info about him was biased purposefully even there are so many things he did for the society- starting from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, UK, and even finishing in Canada. Let’s be honest with ourselves.
3. About Iliyan. I will start from (even in Canada he was working as a social worker, and was part of the municipal elections in Montreal) UK. It was not a coffee shop, it was a cultural hub very important for us, Bulgarians, even our major educational institution put him at a major research, part of the book “Bulgarian cultural heritage in migration.”- even that I think is enough. But I will continue, the place was a library, few thousand books, different languages. The place was helping people, in different way. The place was different from anything else.
a. https://www.dnevnik.bg/na_put/2017/02/13/2915743_bulgarin_upravliava_edno_ot_nai-dobrite_kafeneta_v/
b. http://www.businessnews.bg/predpriemach/5101-blgarsko-kafene-e-1-v-london.html
c. https://telemedia.bg/bg/regioni/pazardjik/otneha-s-izmama-kafeneto-na-pazardjiklija-v-london
d. https://www.marica.bg/region/pazardjik/otneha-legendarnoto-kafe-biblioteka-na-iliqn-kuzmanov
e. There are thousands more sources about his work in London
Or you can watch 30 min with Bulgarian Oprah from London:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRr5PjmMwjk
Bulgaria and his work with the minorities. I just want to mention, that Iliyan Kuzmanov is the only Bulgarian social entrepreneur who fully is financing his work, 100%, only through his business. No one is doing that in Bulgaria, that is Number One in Corruption in EU, stealing EU founds. A problem Iliyan always say!
https://darik.bg/talantlivi-romcheta-ste-risuvat-v-novo-art-prostranstvo-v-pazardzik
https://telemedia.bg/bg/regioni/lesichovo/biznesmen-i-symishlenici-podpomognaha-pensionirani-uchiteli
https://www.bta.bg/bg/voices-for-europe/10715-Sotsialniyat-predpriemach-e-krastoska-mezhdu-sotsialen-rabotnik-i-biznesmen-smy
https://www.marica.bg/region/pazardjik/proektat-mariq-vdahnovi-art-konkurs
https://glednatochka.com/2022/02/15/%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BC%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B4%D0%B5-%D1%81%D1%8A%D1%89%D0%B0/
https://www.desant.net/show-news/55144
He was helping many people during the pandemic in Bulgaria. Helping as well NHS, and everything with his own money, showing that society with active citizens is possible, less Russian style government, and more free business.
https://pzdnes.com/2020/04/21/%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BD-%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D1%80%D1%8A%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD/
https://www.marica.bg/region/pazardjik/geroite-ot-speshna-pomosht-v-pazardjik-edna-kniga-i-edin-skromen-podarak
https://www.marica.bg/region/pazardjik/netradicionno-predstavlenie-v-pazardjik
https://www.btv.bg/shows/predi-obed/videos/sled-uspeshen-biznes-v-london-ilijan-kuzmanov-izbira-da-se-pribere-v-pazardzhik.html
https://darik.bg/talantlivi-romcheta-ste-risuvat-v-novo-art-prostranstvo-v-pazardzik
Even his books are social provocation. Iliyan many times said that is a big fan of Banksy, and art is for free. His first book for Christmas was given for free to the Bulgarian public. And he asked more artists and writers to join him, followed by none. His book was generating money for big literature prize, just to say “people, stop stealing money from the budget”. All that were provocation a la Banksy, by one huge admire of him… DorraG (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)— DorraG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong delete No secondary coverage attesting notability; Google results are positively choked with rambling paid-for content meant to resemble newspaper articles. The number of new editors who have "coincidentally" stumbled onto this debate to spam links isn't a great sign either. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? I can not understand one thing- how you can pay for all that content? 45, 000 results? All national TV networks, Radios, News Agencies that are part of Euronews and Reuters, tons of newspapers... And someone made an article taking 4/5 presumebley paid articles, because I can find press releases. Even I found few hundred press releases made probabley by the publishing company of the writer, or by himself. And you blindley do not take that into account.
    Moreover, the writing is probabley 10% of the article, he is a social enterpreneur who helped thousend of people. About that there are again tons of article. And you did not care about these 90% at all.
    You do not take into account, that someone just made a very controversial original article, completley different than the original Bulgarian. If someone wanted to make something positive, the easiest way was to do translation, and there was no hustle here. But someone made an original English language article, with few controversial articles. And you do not ask yourself why? You do not find that strange? You do not find strange the coments for strong delete after, even there was 100% translation, and all the sources where augmanted?
    It is very strange? And everything is based on presumtions? Doubts? Marko Kralev (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we believe in medias at all, or everything is paid by the gready capitalists and conspirecy in this world? Guys, we live in the ex comunist world, in the world where the Putins propaganda preaches exactly these manthras... Marko Kralev (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked at the existing sources and agree that they are poor. I translated a few of the above sources and they are also poor. Neither the book, the bistro or his foundation have received sufficient media coverage to demonstrate notability. The book has been discussed above as a top 20 Amazon seller, but there are no sources for this besides primary sources likely supplied by the subject. It was self-published by his foundation. His activism suggests that he's a good person, but the sources don't meet the threshold we require to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://bnt.bg/
    https://www.btv.bg/
    https://nova.bg/
    https://www.euronews.com/
    https://www.bta.bg/
    https://bnr.bg/
    Some of the sources used....
    Please someone from the moderators to tell me that all these are fake news sources! This is ridiculas! StoyanUbenov (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    About Ezo Bistro and the work of Iliyan Kuzmanov Bulgaria with Art Angel Foundation 13, 000 sources in Google, and in London for the Bulgarian comunity- 1000 hits, maybe that is unsofficent. More than an hour and half TV time, half hour BBC.... Speachless about how objective we are.... But Putin' propaganda and trols are almighty!.... Total in Google 45, 000- not credible paid sources... Anti Comunist Forever!
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82+%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB+%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BD+%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE+%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE+%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BD+%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALiCzsb6TERd1UBDVfXSkHDM-hEb-q_nKw%3A1654152809025&ei=aV6YYpaMAYWWxc8Pncmn8Aw&oq=%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE+%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE+%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BD+%D0%BA%D1%83&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIFCCEQoAE6BggAEB4QFjoICAAQHhAWEApKBAhBGAFKBAhGGABQHVidEWDvHGgBcAB4AIABrgGIAfsHkgEDNC41mAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz StoyanUbenov (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a hot mess. Cosigning on most of what's been written above - poor sourcing, misleading "award" from paid review service, no indication of WP:GNG, and the major red flag of the folks dropping link spam. Paradoxsociety 08:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is total bias here! Totaly not objective, and all is misleading. Paradoxsociety- ufcorse you can say that all is fake, paid, ect. But in Wikipedia, is there any objectiveness? So many arguments, about all sources, and someone just pop up and say false, delete, paid, fake...?
    By the way:
    https://readersfavorite.com/
    Cost $50 to participate, iliyan kuzmanov is a finalist. And just browse around, all book prizes, even pulicer and noble prize you have some fees to be paid to participate. The only free, are in Russia, North Korea, and some other similar states, all the rest is even a bit paid. Just to avoid all the spam around. Guys, show some honesty! Marko Kralev (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the rest? Or agree with the objective facts? Marko Kralev (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of it There is no doubt he is a compassionate and sensitive man but evidence for inclusion of an article on WP isn't here. I looked at the first block of references which were translated with the new Firefox offline translator which works remarkably well, on a ref per ref basis. They are mixture of profiles, a dody looked architecture magazine, interviews, front page of newspaper and lots of passing mentions and other kinds of odd content. None of it salient. While he has written a book and could potentially pass WP:NAUTHOR, I didn't find a critical reviews of the books. Two decen reviews would do it. The refs that are there are primary, interview, but not really secondary source. The best best bet for authors is in this situation is book reviews, from a real magazine, not mickey mouse stuff, not good reads or some review site. Real critical analysis. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 10:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Driver Era. There is no standalone notability for Rocky Lynch. Most of the content has been copied from Ross Lynch, R5 (band), and The Driver Era. Result is Redirect. Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 08:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Lynch[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No identity outside band. No coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 20:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: A redirect would be the best approach. scope_creepTalk 23:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. Which article though? he was in two bands. Probably The Driver Era - that is his current band.— Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in the lede and several times in the body, so good target. I can close this as Nomination Withdrawn scope_creepTalk 23:32, 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 Draftify to allow for continued improvement. Star Mississippi 02:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunamis International Gospel Center[edit]

Dunamis International Gospel Center (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)

Massively refbombed article about a minor denomination. Strip out the puff and encyclopaedic language and we’re left with a scant history propped by unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Africa. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mccapra This article is still going to be worked on. But in the main time, It should be removed from articles for deletion. This denomination is a major one in Nigeria and it should be on Wikipedia, it has a strong online presence but lacks enough press release for citation because Nigeria is a developing country with small blogs and that shouldn't be the reason this major denomination should be deleted. Thanks. Oklo Adiga (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete unless greatly improved. Possibly draftify -- Certainly remove advertising puff. Currently what I see is about one church ('Center') in Nigeria with three branch churches elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 29 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 23:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Barrows[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Non-existant sourcing. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 20:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Could be merged into Civilian Warfare Gallery, maybe. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SIGCOV is the major issue. Many of the sources currently in the article are passing mentions of the "so-and-so took a picture of him" or "he was the co-director/curator of this" variety. Further source searches on Newspapers.com and OpenLibrary yielded more "opened a gallery with Dean Savard" and "gallery now closing" passing mentions. I don't think there's anything to be merged to the gallery article: the content that's unsourced at Civilian Warfare Gallery is similarly unsourced in the Barrow article (precise locations of the gallery, "launch the careers ...").Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:44, 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. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient quality. If someone wants to actively work on this in draft, I'm happy to provide it without going through REFUND. Star Mississippi 02:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chobanian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Chobanian (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)

Covert advertising article. Fails WP:BIO. Refs are either passing mentions, primary. scope_creepTalk 18:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the article has been translated from Ukrainian Wikipedia. There are enough sources with not just short mentions, but deep reportage: Bloomberg, New York Times, Wall Steer Journal and a bunch of serious independent Ukrainian media sources. Easily passes WP:GNG as he is the couuntry's and slightly Eastern European leader in his sphere. Also, his fundraising efforts amidst Russian invasion of Ukraine are important and well covered too. Petrushchak ivan (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment This article was a clear crypto-promotion goner the first time it was deleted some years back, but I'm wondering if the recent Ukraine fundraising coverage might not be sufficient for a Keep this time round. With a caveat that a fair few of the cited sources are still from the cryptosphere echo chamber and should be downweighted accordingly. user:Elmidae User talk:Elmidae --11:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the below preempts my own slower trawl through the sources. Looks like a general lack of substance, so no dice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae I think vice versa. I've added numerous new sources into the article and made it more substantial. the crypto fundraising made the by the article's subject is unprecedented. Senate Banking Committee hearing made by Chobanian and later outcomes are also an interesting integrap part of this article. IgorTurzh (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

(edit conflict)

  • The sources are rank and typical of a paid for article on non-notable businessman, PR, primary interviews, passing mentions and some advertising. We will go through them:
Ref 1 Ukraine’s Crypto Banker Describes How War Is Changing His Life Interview, primary.
Reliable:Yes, Signifcant:Yes, Independent:No
Ref 2 The crypto capital of the world An interiew in part. Mostly covers crypto in ukraine, contrasts in with Poland.
Reliable:Yes, Signifcant:Yes, Independent:No
Ref 3 How Crypto Became Part of the War Michael Chobanian, the founder of the largest crypto exchange fund in Ukraine, explains how his company is soliciting donations for the Ukrainian war effort. Interview.
Reliable:Yes, Signifcant:Yes, Independent:No
Ref 4 Currency of last resort Chobanian — recently profiled by Bloomberg as “taking up Bitcoin instead of taking up rifles” — is the founder of Kuna, the cryptocurrency exchange which helped start Gleb Naumenko’s Bitcoin career. Interview. Primary.
Reliable:No, Signifcant:Yes, Independent:No
Ref 5 Американские криптобиржи Gemini, Bitstamp, Bittrex и bitFlyer объявили о создании саморегулируемой организации по цифровым товарам, таким как криптовалюты, сообщил Business Insider 20 августа. Press-release
Reliable:No, Signifcant:No, Independent:No
Ref 6 Mykhailo Chobanyan: The Ministry of Internal Affairs helped with Kuna PR, and the National Bank provided demand Ministry of Finance Press-release.
Reliable:No, Signifcant:No, Independent:No
Ref 7 Michael Chobanian is considered the “godfather of cryptocurrencies” in Ukraine. The son of a miner becomes one of the first Ukrainian Bitcoin miners, in 2015 he founded the country's first crypto exchange Kuna and set up the first Bitcoin ATM. PR.
Reliable:No, Signifcant:No, Independent:No
Ref 8 Ukraine crypto leader: 'Blockchain will help rebuild my country' Another interview.
Reliable:Yes, Signifcant:No, Independent:No
Ref 9 The road from public enemy to crypto warrior of Ukraine Fundraising page. Non-RS.
Reliable:No, Signifcant:No, Independent:No
Ref 10 Coindesk policy. Non-RS.
Reliable:No, Signifcant:No, Independent:No
Ref 11 IMF Warns That Crypto Mining Could Aid Countries Hit by Sanctions Passing mention.
Reliable:Yes, Signifcant:No, Independent:Yes

The references are very poor. The usual run-of-the-mill PR, press-release, reports on the company, interviews. scope_creepTalk 12:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Basically the references are not so poor. I will not discuss the previous long comment, but will add my own view. Regarding general notability criteria the subject meets them. There are plenty of sources on various occasins, which are not PR or press-releases but with brief, medium or deep coverage.

1) This link works, as it's both reliable, independent and significant. Apart from the interview the journalist gives the reader weighted non-advertising information about Chobanian. This not routine analytical short story about the subject is enough to be a reliable source to be used on wiki. So, not advertising, but just neural coverage of the person with a small interivew on crypto topic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-31/ukraine-s-crypto-banker-describes-how-war-is-changing-his-life
2) several podcasts on WSJ helped generate a lot of news even in Poland (it was strange to find them occasionally on reputable Polish news, e.g. https://polskieradio24.pl/42/3167/Artykul/2919584,rosjanie-transferuja-majatki-za-granice-za-pomoca-kryptowalut-to-sposob-na-obejscie-sankcji )
3) Concerning the general notability and impact of the subject, it's worth mentioning, that Chobanian's speech to the Senate Banking Committee, in which he described how Russians use cryptocurrencies to avoid sanctions, helped Republicans block Elizabeth Warren's law on sanctions for cryptocurrency exchanges working with Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/business/dealbook/nickel-markets-trading.html ). According to Protocol media the specch also raised hopes that the crypto will be treated more positively in Capitol Hill (https://www.protocol.com/fintech/michael-chobanian-congress-crypto).
4) Here is an independent and in-depth study of the state of cryptocurrencies in the world and Ukraine. Chobanian here is both slightly interviewed but also analysed and covered by the New Yort Times journalists (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/business/crypto-ukraine.html). I disaggree, that the source is not independent. Everyone is welcome to read.
5) Forbes longread independent reliable and significant report/coverage on the "ideologist of the Ukrainian crypto-market" as Forbes claims Chobanian (https://forbes.ua/company/mikhail-chobanyan-ideolog-ukrainskogo-kriptovalyutnogo-rynka-i-sozdatel-birzhi-kuna-kak-on-gotovitsya-k-prikhodu-globalnykh-konkurentov-10082021-2229)
6) Brief, but not paid, reliable coverage of the subject at LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-03-17/war-ukraine-kyiv-try-keep-life-going
7) An independent reliable news/story at Washington Post about Chobanian's efforts in fundraising money for Ukraine when Russia invaded https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/03/ukraine-cryptocurrency-donations
8) Medium coverage of the subject at Bloomberg (2018): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-10/revolution-anarchy-and-bitcoin-in-ukraine. Here he is called: "the father of Kyiv’s crypto community". Also there are his comments, other comments about him and a reporter's comments on crypto and Chobanian's activities.
9) Brief but not passing mention at Fortune about Chobanian's crypto fund for Armed forces of Ukraine https://fortune.com/2022/04/08/crypto-ukraine-saving-lives-helping-oligarchs-sanctions-binance

So, the verdict is clear for me: Keep the article as the subject is notable, with quite history and media coverage and with a verified impact on crypto and not only sphere (biggest crypto fundraising in the world, first crypto exchange in CIS region, community building, etc). However it may be shortened, rewritten, fixed etc in order to meet all Wikipedia criteria and what WP is not. I agree that for English language auditory the translation of Ukrainian article may seem promotional, but it's more cultural differences and a zeitgeist (war with Russian and related stuff). --IgorTurzh (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One independent source and bunch of non-independent sources do not help the notability, still leaning delete. "Reliable" for our needs here doesn't mean "good", it means we (the wiki community) consider them unbiased sources. Sources written by the subject of the article aren't neutral. Basically you have one "sort of" good source that hardly says anything and a bunch of "not useable" sources. We need more of the first kind. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 6 in particular only mentions him in passing. We need articles primarily about him, not written by him/independent from him and in notable publications as determined here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You still don't have enough to help keep the article. If you have more, please share them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nazi ideology this guy believes in. He support Nazi Armed forces of ukraine. he helps Nazi in ukraine and boasts about this fact in numerous articles. why so many write about him? he should be deleted as many other latent Nazi in ukraine. --Frische Frische (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument for deletion. You don't need to be nice to have an article, only notable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are funny guy. Please stop disrupting wikipedia by spreading nonsense and Russian propaganda Petrushchak ivan (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's not propaganda, it's a neutral discussion. We consider all points. We have articles in wiki on everything from Grumpy Cat to horrible genocides. All get treated equally here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I think I can rewrite and make it more suitable for wikipedia. Please put this article into a Draft space. I will search for new reliable sources. Petrushchak ivan (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Petrushchak ivan: You have already indicated for keep. scope_creepTalk 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind Petrushchak ivan (talk) 11:06, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Dead in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dawn of the Dead 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)

Only two references. As an article, fails WP:IPC (also, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:GNG). As a list it fails WP:NLIST. Relevant reading: WP:NOTTVTROPES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lots of uncited original research. There's also a ton of uncited stuff in the "in popular culture" section at the referenced article. ~XyNqtc 19:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely unsourced and unverified, no reason for this to exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the main article could probably use a section on the film's legacy and influence to replace its current terrible "In Popular Culture" section, nothing from this spinout would be useful in preserving for such a section, being a largely unsourced list of mostly non-notable trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is overwhelmingly WP:OR. Many of the references are questionably accurate because they depend on the interpretation of editors. One of the sources is a disclaimer saying that the fictional work is not based on Dawn of the Daed? If we removed all the poorly sourced material, there would be nothing left. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with others, it should be deleted. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and mention the most significant influences only on the film's page. Yuotort (talk) 21:50, 29 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 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games#Sports. ✗plicit 13:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games[edit]

Taekwondo 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)

Empty tables; fails GNG. This nomination also includes Judo at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games and Karate at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games. These latter two have the same issue. Two other Afd's related to these three articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archery at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games have also cited the empty tables and GNG concern. All three articles here are just sitting around until the games begin in August 2022. Can be userified for the creator until there is more information to be added. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:57, 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 23:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forthbox[edit]

Forthbox (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:NCORP. There are a large number of citations on the page to cryptocurrency-specific websites and to press releases, neither of which are considered to be independent reliable sources for the purposes of corporate notability (per WP:NCRYPTO). Crypto-specific websites cited in the article include Coinbase, CoinMarketCap, Binance, CoinCarp, CoinGecko, cryptobuyingtips, Coinspeaker, and Smart Liquidity Network, while the remaining sources are composed of press releases. The sole exception to all this is the Tweet, which is obviously not independent. I'm also not able to find sourcing that would satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. As such, I believe that this article should be deleted for failing the relevant notability guideline. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:27, 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 withdrawn, as promised, because the article has seen neutralization and referencing repair. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Da Costa[edit]

Alexandre Da Costa (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)

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a concert violinist, whose notability claims per WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. There are some definite conflict of interest issues here, as the article was first created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history concentrated exclusively on Da Costa, one other musician and a music school that they both seem to have some unspecified association with (they all interlink each other as see-alsos, but none of them offer any context at all to explain why), and was also subsequently edited by the subject himself — but the core problem is that while this says a lot of notable-sounding stuff, it doesn't properly support any of it with reliable notability-building sources.
And while one claim here ("Juno Award winner") is both verifiably true and a solid inherent notability claim that clinches his includability in principle, the overall tone of the article is so egregiously advertorialized that it's not enough to just plop down a footnote on the Juno Award statement and walk away.
As always, the notability test isn't in the things the article says, it's in the quality of the referencing that the article is or isn't using to support the things the article says — so obviously no prejudice against recreation if somebody can write a neutral version that actually supports its content with reliable sourcing, but in this highly advertorialized form it requires the blow it up and start over treatment. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but badly needs a rewrite. A quick GSearch confirms he was named as the "director?"/maestro for the Longueuil Symphony Orchestra until 2029 (which I assume is the conductor), several hits in French newspapers from Quebec and a few TV interviews. Orchestras are not my particular area of interest in Wikipedia however. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advertorialized content cannot be left advertorialized pending some unspecified future day when somebody eventually deigns to rewrite it for proper NPOV. Obviously I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if it gets comprehensively overhauled into a properly written and properly sourced article before this discussion concludes — but if that doesn't happen, then we have to delete the advertorialized version and restart a new article from scratch, because leaving the advertorialism untouched and unaddressed is absolutely not an option at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blank it and tag it as a stub? We can add a few sentences as a base. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I did the rewrite that was called for above by Oaktree b and Bearcat, basically went WP:TNT on it, taking it to zero and adding in only what was verifiable. I found that he's the artistic director of what seems to be a serious orchestra, and is well covered in mainstream media, so he seems clearly notable, even if this article was both WP:PROMO and not cited until now. I hope this is helpful. CT55555 (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, looks good as a base. The Juno win alone makes him notable. Rest certainly adds to it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's more like it. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MaxnaCarter (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanisław Roman Lewandowski[edit]

Stanisław Roman Lewandowski (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)

Nothing to indicate notability. The page has 1 sentence. Would be better to expand on (?) Réunion (talk!) 17:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on his article in Polish WP[22] and Ukranian WP,[23] it appears that notability exists. It would be great if an editor fluent in either language could have a look at the citations in those Wikipedias. He has a biography in this book:[24] and the other language articles have additional citations, unfortunately, I am not fluent in Polish or Ukranian. Netherzone (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree - I think there's gotta be some reason that this person is still on enwiki. Just confused why there's nothing else than the one sentence. Réunion (talk!) 23:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that the person who created it intended to expand it (or hoped someone else would) but never got around to it. Netherzone (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The person is clearly notable, per pl wiki article and its sourcing (ex. this reliable source: [25]) and WP:BEFORE (second hit I get on Google books is a bioraphical note abut him), which it appears the nominator failed to do. The article is, granted, a sub-stub, tagged as such, and arguably warranting a {{notability}} as in the current form that is not apparent, but since a cursory search is sufficient to prove said notability, the nom is cautioned to use a template (or preferably, spend a few minutes translating content from Polish Wikipedia) rather than sending such topics here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Checking his Wikidata entry he seems to have a number of external IDs which suggest that he's notable, for example entries in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine and the Austrian Biographical Encylopedia Piecesofuk (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary per the two national biographic dictionaries/encyclopedias mentioned by Piecesofuk. Likely meets WP:GNG based on citations in Polish & Ukranian WP, and the entry found by Piotrus. Netherzone (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3. Having entries in multiple national biographical dictionaries is sufficient for us to presume notability. Article should be expanded, not deleted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His stuff seems to have been exhibited at least twice and there is more than coverage that is needed to pass WP:ARTIST. The article has been here since 2012 and never really been expanded. scope_creepTalk 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anybody know where the maintenance category for the articles that have a "corresponding article on ... Wikipedia" tag. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elton Fernandez[edit]

Elton Fernandez (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)

Looking at the article and an internet search, likely fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing even close to suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hits in the Hindustan Times and CNN, both written by the subject of the article. I can find brief mentions in Vogue or other magazines, but I don't see notability for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b. Does not meet WP:GNG, as it lacks the sources which are not just reliable. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:12, 30 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 23:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Khan Sarkar[edit]

Qasim Khan Sarkar (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 single WP:RS in this article. This 'figure' does not appear in WP:RS, such as From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia's Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, which mentions all the khans/governors of the Shirvan Khanate. Made by a indeffed user notable for WP:TENDENTIOUS edits and sockpuppetry. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 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. And transwiki, which can be done by anybody interested, who may request userfication of this content for that purpose via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 18:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of the Communes of Eure-et-Loir[edit]

Armorial of the Communes of Eure-et-Loir (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:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The vast majority of these have no source, no context, and aren't even important enough to be discussed in the article on the commune itself. Thankfully the list is very incomplete, as France has more than 36 thousand communes apparently. Heraldrist (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWikiholic (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and TransWiki User:Dream Focus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armorial of the Communes of Seine-Saint-Denis nearby) has surely got this right, we should transwiki this and similar pages to Commons, where a page can cover a category's worth of images that are already on Commons without controversy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki per Dream Focus. Azuredivay (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article could be transformed into a redirect to commune coats of arms of Eure-et-Loir by arrondissements. The pages then explain the meanings of the commune coat of arms. An example would be: A user goes to this page, chooses "Armorial of the communes of the Arrondissement of Chartres" then scrolls to Chartres, which has the coat of arms and meaning of Chartres' coat of arms. The user is also able to see meanings and other information for other commune coats of arms in Eure-et-Loir that have one. Heraldrist (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki and delete Given that the images I spot checked already exist on Commons I'm not sure what editors suggesting to transwiki are really asking to do, but will follow-up on the article's talk page before deleting locally. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close edit: Note that after further discussion on the talk page no content was found to transwikify and so the page was just deleted. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of the Communes of Seine-Saint-Denis[edit]

Armorial of the Communes of Seine-Saint-Denis (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)

Category-masquerading-as-an-article. Fails WP:NOTGALLERY. Save a few exceptions, most of these coats of arms are not even important enough to get mentioned on the page of their respective city. Thus, there is no reasonable ground on which to expect the presence of significant coverage from which to write encyclopedic prose for this list topic, either, on top of the NOT issue. Heraldrist (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWikiholic (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and TransWiki User:Dream Focus has surely got this right, we should transwiki this and similar pages to Commons, where a page can cover a category's worth of images that are already on Commons without controversy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and TransWiki As per Dream Focus. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki per Dream Focus. Azuredivay (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article could be transformed into a redirect to commune coats of arms of Seine-Saint-Denis by arrondissements. The pages then explain the meanings of the commune coat of arms. An example would be: A user goes to this page, chooses "Armorial of the communes of the Arrondissement of Saint-Denis" then scrolls to Saint-Denis, which has the coat of arms and meaning of Saint-Denis' coat of arms. The user is also able to see meanings and other information for other commune coats of arms in Seine-Saint-Denis that have one. Heraldrist (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Katana Zero. Star Mississippi 02:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Stander[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. scope_creepTalk 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passes WP:CREATIVE #3 but there is not enough info from third-party sources to justify a biographical article. ~XyNqtc 17:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Just like last time. The lack of significant coverage just makes this basically a ONEEVENT bio. It's better to redirect to the single thing they did that is notable. ApLundell (talk) 03:57, 29 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 23:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Moroz[edit]

Oleh Moroz (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 military person. No military awards grant presumption of notability since deprecation of WP:SOLDIER. Could not find any sources independent of Ukrainian government (0 hits for Ukrainian name on Google News). (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hero of Ukraine, the highest award of what is now a very significant country, clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. The statement that No military awards grant presumption of notability since deprecation of WP:SOLDIER is therefore simply not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The level of awards considered in Anybio are ones that are much more restricted in who is given them than any awards. Beyond this, we need some sort of indepdent significant coverage to write an article, which we do not have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if Hero of Ukraine meets WP:ANYBIO #1 that doesn't warrant a page as WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Seems more suitable for inclusion in a list of awardees of the Hero of Ukraine. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are over 600 Heroes of Ukraine (and that's all since 1991). For comparison, there are about 60 MoH recipients alive. There is a concerted tendency to create articles of Ukrainian military leaders who in most cases have been commanding company-sized elements and aren't notable for any major personal act of valor. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:39, 29 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 23:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vasyl Boyechko[edit]

Vasyl Boyechko (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 military officer. No military awards grant presumption of notability since deprecation of WP:SOLDIER. The only possibly independent sources I could find in Ukrainian or any other language are two really brief announcements of his receipt of the award. GNG is not met. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 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 23:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN countries in sporting events[edit]

ASEAN countries in sporting events (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)

Random intersection of two characteristics: does a country belong to ASEAN and how has that country fared at major sporting events. See WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Fram (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and Asia. Fram (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see it anything more than a trivia. NavjotSR (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TRIVIA, all this information will be listed in correct places on Wikipedia anyway (like country X at the Olympics pages). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:23, 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 redirect to Ali Akram Shuvo with history under the redirect if someone wants to merge what is sourced. Abbasulu, I think you have a misunderstanding of sourcing requirements. Every article needs independent, reliable sources. Star Mississippi 02:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akram Shuvo discography[edit]

Ali Akram Shuvo discography (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 originally tried to redirect but considering the target article also only has 2 sources for the entirety of it, i don't see how this woudl be suitable as a standalone article since his discog isn't significant enough. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is well sourced, most of his film scores are charted in several online sites. There's no question of notability. Discographies must mention only the composer's name and the soundtrack's name. Thry shouldn’t have any article or newspaper story like biographical articles. Abbasulu (talk) 08:00, 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 redirect to Swimming at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre breaststroke. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Maw[edit]

Edward Maw (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)

Maw was a non-medaling competitor in the Olympics. The text from Olympedia is not enough on its own to pass GNG. A search showed no more sources other than sports tables. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 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. ✗plicit 14:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Mancini[edit]

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

BLP sourced mostly to IMDB and fansites. The sources that weren't those, that I was able to get back from archive.org don't even mention Mancini but just talk about the search for the missing relative. The article does mention some appearances on some stuff so maybe there are some sources that I can't find through a search, but for now I don't see enough for WP:GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 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 02:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilraj Singh Rawat[edit]

Dilraj Singh Rawat (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. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 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 redirect to List of General Hospital characters. ✗plicit 14:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Devane[edit]

Anna Devane (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 100% overly-detailed plot summary and casting history, GNews entries are mostly tabloid-like material and recaps. Most references are primary or about the actress, Finola Hughes. Likely fails WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Television. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the assumptions that the listed refs are independent RS'es. Nothing wrong with trimming extensively, but deletion is not cleanup and this appears to be a notable fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piotrus, are we escalating from refusal to look at relevant sources in Google News or Scholar, to refusal to review sources already cited in an article? Tsk. I've looked at the sourcing and confirm that there are sufficient independent RS already in the article; they say pretty much exactly what I thought they would. If you ask nicely, I'd be happy to share which ones I looked at with you if you amend your petulant and irrelevant WP:VAGUEWAVE at THEREMAYBESOURCES and agree to look at the sourcing already present in the article. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which part of the "Ping me if sources are found and a proper reception section is added, then I'll reconsider my vote"? If you don't feel like even discussing them here, then no, I don't feel I need to do anything except clarify I prefer SOFTDELETION through redirecting to hard deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which part of "you need to evaluate the sources already in the article before you !vote" was unclear? You were neither asked nor expected to do anything more, and you've not, apparently, done even that. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of General Hospital characters as the article is just a long, fancrufty plot summary. Unlke Jclemens, I am not AGFing that "listed refs" contain SIGCOV; WP:V clearly states that responsibility to prove this is on editors who want to write about this. As this hasn't ben done, this should no exist on the assumption that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Ping me if sources are found and a proper reception section is added, then I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Redirect to List of General Hospital characters - The only actual sources being used that might actually be reliable and secondary are all just routine reporting on casting rumors/announcements. These are also almost entirely on the actress, not the fictional character. The vast bulk of the article is just a massive plot summary that is largely just sourced to official plot summaries that used to be posted on the network's site. Searching for additional sources just turns up more of the same - routine casting coverage, and minor mentions in plot summaries. That said, as a reasonable Redirect target exists, that would be preferable over deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect per Rorschacma, in the interest of building consensus. There's no WP:SIGCOV in these sources, and what little there is only recaps the WP:PLOT, which is WP:NOT enough for a Wikipedia article. A valid and obvious redirect target exists. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:32, 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 11:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Agee[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Adam Agee (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. I wish him the best but no indication of wp:notability of him as an individual . The only two sources are a track listing and his youtube page. A third was to a a Wikipedia page on a band which I took out. Article has been recreated 3-4 times. 3 removals of redirects and Page Curation indicated a previous deletion. Possibly should be salted if deleted? North8000 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. This doesn't seem to meet any of the guidelines under WP:SINGER. The references @Oaktree mentions don't really qualify as "non-trivial," at least to my reading, and it doesn't really pass any other notability references. The article doesn't really seem to be contributing anything to Wikipedia except for a slow-motion edit war. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:01, 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 , which does not preclude a redirect, which is an editorial decision. Star Mississippi 02:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayanda Ngila[edit]

Ayanda Ngila (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 Daily Maverick is not WP:RS, and without that, nothing in the article discloses much about the person. I can't find much written about him that is from sources that are WP:RS, most of what's online is from various pages loosely affiliated with the Abahlali baseMjondolo. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Xclusivzik, there is nothing in depth here PaulPachad (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a good faith misunderstanding here. The Daily Maverick is actually the leading daily publication in South Africa. It is certainly taken as credible. It is has no political alignment to the organisation that Ngila was a member of at the time of his assassination. Certainly the article needs a lot of work but that is happening, albeit slowly. It has been substantially improved since this notice was placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Bird 1973 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete— only notable for dying. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 14:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Abahlali baseMjondolo#Repression. This killing did get coverage in the Daily News/IOL[26] and IOL directly [27], however I’m not convinced that the paper and its stablemates qualify as WP:RS post-2020, and the standalone IOL website-only articles are particularly problematic. The rest of the sources seem to be associated with the organisation, and there seems to be a longstanding pattern of WP:UNDUE coverage here. Park3r (talk) 17:04, 30 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LosterMaboyya[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, not notable under WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:30, 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. Star Mississippi 02:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battles involving the Jat[edit]

Battles involving the Jat (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)

Sources mostly look suspect. I am also not sure that it’s common practice to create Battle list articles for ethnic groups and rather to do so for kingdoms or nations e.g. Battles involving the Maratha Empire or List of wars involving Finland. Surely it would be better to have separate articles for the kingdoms/states involved in these battles rather than just for an ethnic group. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not all sources seem unreliable, and many sources are from good authors. Also, the nominator was blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. There is need of copyediting, but delition is not justifiable.Admantine123 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a horrid article in structure, but has plenty of referneces, whether or not RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- I already saw many reliable references at the article. Will review and clean up the article soon. Regards Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many references are considering to be WP:RS. Expand the article with more reliable sources. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:17, 30 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. Consensus is Hero of Ukraine is not sufficient for notability for this recipient Star Mississippi 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Khoda[edit]

Leonid Khoda (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 military officer. No military awards grant presumption of notability since deprecation of WP:SOLDIER. Could not find any sources independent of Ukrainian government (0 hits for Ukrainian name on Google News). (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hero of Ukraine, the highest award of what is now a very significant country, clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. The statement that No military awards grant presumption of notability since deprecation of WP:SOLDIER is therefore simply not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passage of WP:ANYBIO does not mean this person is actually notable. ANYBIO is a guideline saying that the criterion makes a person likely to be notable. Nothing is known about this person other than the fact that he received the award, we don't even know what he did in battle to receive the award, or even anything else about him. ~XyNqtc 18:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if Hero of Ukraine meets WP:ANYBIO #1 that doesn't warrant a page as WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Seems more suitable for inclusion in List of Heroes of Ukraine. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Zoo[edit]

Dinosaur Zoo (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 app; page appears to have been created by account representing the developer in question. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:53, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques in Muzaffargarh[edit]

List of mosques in Muzaffargarh (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 list of mosques in a region of the Punjab, Pakistan. Article does not meet guidelines set out in WP:NLIST. Whiteguru (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Whiteguru Ok Delete, but in couple of days, I will move data to my userspace for future work Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:06, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Popov (businessman)[edit]

Sergei Popov (businessman) (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)

Little or no hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Reliable sources? Bash7oven (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be enough information about the topic in reliable sources, especially with recent world events, to merit GNG. The article just needs to be updated/re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megtetg34 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this. [[28]] In 2008, he was the richest person in Europe under age 40. And notability doesn't go away even if net worth drops, right? Plus, #984 isn't that far from #800. ;-) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole of the coverage on the subject is Europe's richest person under 40 is Sergei Popov. The 36-year-old was worth $6.4 billion in March when we last estimated his wealth. He spent the 1990s trading metals in the frosty environs of the Urals and Siberia, selling pipes and copper cable. As a client of MDM Bank, he became friendly with the company's young owner, Andrei Melnichenko.; which is at best very much marginally significant coverage; and still wouldn't allow us to write very much encyclopedic about him. What would be required is a good, independent source with at least a couple of in-depth paragraphs on him. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be true if there was unsourced material here. But there’s not. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Even though there is a slight 'numerical advantage' for the keep !votes (4 keep, 2 delete + nomination statement), the arguments on the delete side are more convincing. The first two keep !votes offer nothing by way of policy-based argumentation. The first delete !vote by Megtetg34 argues cogently for the weakness of the sources used in the article. The third !keep vote is incomprehensible, while the final one insists on the subject's awards as a sign of notability. However, WP:ANYBIO is normally interpreted so as to demand very well-known (read: notable) awards; this was not the case here. On balance, no strong arguments have been presented by the keep side and Megtetg34's analysis was not successfully challenged. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Frederick Marcotte[edit]

Michael Frederick Marcotte (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)

Businessman does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- coverage is of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL events for a person in this role. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With due respect, I don't understand your problem here. First you proposed it for deletion that was countered by someone then you had issues with award verification which was then addressed. I saw your profile and appreciate your time here but seeing your edits I concluded that you are habitual in removing pages on Wikipedia, there are 10000s of pages on Wikipedia that require attention from someone knowledgeable like you but you are only busy removing pages, this won't benefit you in any way I believe. It would be great for the whole world if you fix problems on Wikipedia and find sources and fact check on pages with maintenance tags. Secondly, you mentioned WP:NBIO, did you had a look what that reads? People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. So, based on this statement I see no problem and he won awards as well. Don't hate me for what I said but I guess we are here to help Wikipedia to be a better place irrespective of personal issues and grudges. Thank you. Anaya Levine (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I de-proded the article when I was landed there and saw some more references/edits afterwards. I believe the subject is notable based on the awards and sources that are independent. Samantha Mont (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: less comment on editors, more policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Topic does not have enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion. Source 1 is a very brief interview posted to a consulting agency website, it's not a news outlet. Source 2 is the topic talking on a non-notable podcast. Source 3 doesn't exist. Source 4 does count towards establishing the topic's general notability. Source 5 is a trivial mention at the bottom of the page, it's not an article, nor is it a news source. Source 6 is another article from bizjournals.com. The problem with this source, and as it pertains to 4, 8 and 12 is that it's all from the same media outlet. The sources as a collective may count as 1 source towards establishing GNG. For example, a subject can have 100 New York Times articles about them. It's still not enough to establish GNG if there are no other reliable sources covering the topic. The topic must have SIGCOV in multiple (WP:3REFS) RS. Source 7 is a press release. Source 8 I just explained in Source 6. Source 9 is a paid article in Forbes, says it right at the top of the page. Source 10 is a trivial mention naming him as an employee of the company. Source 11, he has a trivial quote half way down the article. It's not SIGCOV. Source 12, I addressed in source 6. Source 13 is a link to a Flickr photo with his name on it. It does not say NASA on it, yet it is cited in the article that he received awards from NASA. It is a blank picture, with his name on it. There is nothing online, or in any other sources about the topic receiving any such awards from NASA. This article significantly lacks sources as it pertains to our notability guidelines for inclusion, and reads like a resume builder with no way to verify many of its claims. The topic, in its current state, does not belong in Wikipedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if we see regionally it's WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JK.Kite (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm in agreement with Megtetg34's above analysis of the sources. I'd also like to see a couple of in-depth profiles. To dissect further, I know there's a guideline Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited, but I sometimes disagree with its interpretation - if someone is the CEO of a notable company, I think that absolutely helps with notability. In this case, none of the companies he founded or led seem to be considered notable enough for their own articles. His CTO role at Echostar seems the most newsworthy item here, and if I were editing that article I wouldn't even think to put info about him there. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/comment As per my analysis, Wikipedia is of sources and sources, awards and positions make people notable. bizjournals, Colorado Technology Association, Colorado Springs Gazette, Forbes are all notable especially awards see WP:ANYBIO and they are cited as well. Yes not from a source itself but the docs seems legit. Marc TW (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Forbes articles is a paid article and therefore it is not eligible to establish notability. Further - there is no reports/evidence of any of the awards cited anywhere. If you have any additional sources, please post them here. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. List of mayors of Clearwater, Florida, a potential redirect target, has since been deleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hibbard[edit]

Frank Hibbard (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. Has not received significant press coverage. Coverage is entirely routine. AusLondonder (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there another option given that it looks like the redirect target is likely to be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Following on from comments above, WP:NPOL notes that major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable. For one, the Tampa Bay Times regularly makes mention of Hibbard, often in connection with Hibbart's views and efforts on redevelopment. See [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] while Hibbard's 2020 campaign get covered in some detail at [34]. These examples are just a small subset of the overall press coverage Hibbard has received in several Florida publications. The objection above that "coverage is entirely routine" is not founded in WP policy. It is to be expected that the press coverage of local politicians largely or entirely focusses upon local politics which is perhaps what was meant by routine. Additionally, Hibbard's views on redevelopment, for example, are not routine. A mayor could be in favour or against such a move and so covering that in the article tells the reader something about Hubbard. Greenshed (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage in the local media, where such coverage is expected to exist, is not necessarily always enough per se. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect Routine coverage is coming from the regional area in which the mayor resides. Also using the same website does not help the argument. That is literally routine coverage by definition and by WP:ROUTINE. – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, or even just because the article cites a small handful of local coverage in their local media where such coverage is merely expected. The notability test for mayors does not hinge on just verifying that he won a mayoral election and then writing a résumé-like blurb focusing on his pre-mayoral background; it hinges on the ability to write and source a substantive article that deep dives into his political impact: specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is, and Clearwater is neither large nor prominent enough a city to just hand him a presumption of notability even if the article doesn't surpass the required standard. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Brearcat> Bearian (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient notability, and the article reads like resume MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable aside from his position, and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia outside of that. IrishOsita (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus - No clear consensus clear after two re-listings with no further discussion. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Jim Morrison Triptych[edit]

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

Insufficient Secondary RS to establish N. T. E. Breitenbach is probably notable by virtue of his Rome Prize, though the article seems a bit looong for the scope of his career. Proverbidioms seems like it passes notability on its own b/c of its significant cultural impact. But this one seems like a stretch. A combo of WP:OR and a bit of belief that notability is inherited from Morrison. The creator/primary author of the article is a WP:SPA working on these three articles. Theredproject (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a 2010 article which has been improved over the years and seems well sourced. Jim Morrison collaborated on the painting and defined its contents and subjects, so this is not inherited web-centered notability (per nom link) but a genuine collaboration between two artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete seems well sourced is absurd. There is one on-line source, the website of the creator of the painting that is the subject of the article. The book by Silva has an ISBN number that yields not results, is not listed in worldcat and doesn't appear to be held in any libraries for us to consult. Davis does mention Breitenbach in Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend, on page 390: "He even had the album jacket in mind when he replied to a letter from a college art student, T.E. Breitenbach, who had sent Jim samples of his work ...". That is not well-sourced, that is very poorly sourced. This painting is in no collection and has not been the subject of independent, critical reviews. The only coverage it has received is in Wikipedia and Wikipedia clones. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Davis quote continues past the ellipses and appears to be quoted in the article. I don't have the book, but if quoted correctly and not misrepresented in the article it would be a good source from a major Morrison bio. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what ellipses are for: they indicate an omission. The complete text is:
"Around this time, Jim decided to record another solo poetry session. If the work sounded good, he told his friends, he could release a spoken word album. He spoke with movie composer Lalo Schifrin about providing orchestral settings for some of these poems. He even had the album jacket in mind when he replied to a letter from a college art student, T. E. Breitenbach, who had sent Jim samples of his work—clearly showing that Jim was actively and creatively engaged in the preproduction of the album". It goes on to say: "The letter was typed, probably by Jim’s secretary, Kathy Lisciandro, dated October 9, 1970. In it he asked Breitenbach to do a triptych, the left panel depicting “a radiant moonlit beach and an endless stream of naked young couples running silently along the water’s edge,” where “a tiny infant grins at the universe, and around his crib stand several ancient, old people.” In the center panel would be “a modern city or metropolis of the future at noon, insane with activity,” and the right panel “a view through a car windshield at night on a long straight desert highway.” These vivid scenes of death and rebirth were reflective of the new beginning Jim himself was seeking. Jim closed the letter by assuring Breitenbach that if he could create “something related to these themes” in the next five months, Jim would use it".
It continues: "Included with Jim’s letter were signed first editions of The New Creatures and An American Prayer. In this letter, Jim seems to have two recent poems in mind, “Vast Radiant Beach” and “Come, They Crooned, the Ancient Ones.” T. E. Breitenbach finished the triptych a few months later, in 1971, but was informed by Kathy that James Morrison had moved to France for a while."
In my view, and I actually made an effort to track down and read the sources, that is not a sufficient basis for an article about a painting that has generated no critical discourse at all. It is an insignificant work by an art student who received a letter from Jim Morrison suggesting that he (Breitenbach) could make something he (Morrison) might use. The painting might have some significance if Morrison ever saw the painting and decided to use it for an album cover, be he never did. Vexations (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The full quote easily confirms the bio as a major reputable source for the page. Not an easy one to spin any other way - Morrison took the artist up on his offer and then described exactly what he wanted in the painting. This was an agreed-upon collab. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't the artist up on his offer, he left for France and didn't use it. Vexations (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He, well, died in Paris? Pined for the fjords etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into T. E. Breitenbach. On it's own there is not enough evidence to claim this is a notable painting, and I agree the sourcing is too weak to support GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:02, 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 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Thenkaraikottai[edit]

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Thenkaraikottai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established for this church. References consist of diocesan listing by UCAN (a news outlet) and directory of a religious congregation. Article fails general notability, WP:GNG Whiteguru (talk) 08:23, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Bryant[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jenna Bryant (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)

advertising.The references are to trivial events such as funding, or are PR-based interviews, or blog postings. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only significant source that mentions her is this one https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/13/los-angeles-based-deep-tech-investment-firm-riot-ventures-is-raising-a-75m-fund/ . However it is not significant coverage and its a brief mention. Several of the other sources cited are paid press releases. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 19:09, 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 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 14:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Rosary Church, Averipally[edit]

Our Lady of Rosary Church, Averipally (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)

References given in this article do not address this particular church, hence, notability is not established. Ad limina visits to Rome, Congregations of Nuns and Christian politics in Tamil Nadu have nothing to do with notability for this church. Fails GNG. Whiteguru (talk) 06:59, 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 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jujhar Singh Nehra[edit]

Jujhar Singh Nehra (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 checked it for reliable references and didn't found anything which can be called as reliable. The article has no WP:RS reference for many days. I don't think the article meets WP:GNG, apart from it most of the content of the article is from community based mirror sites like jatland wiki. Considering all this, I think this is the best step here. RS6784 (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, statues in India are also built for fake ( non-existent) figures. I couldn't find a single RS reference for this personality. The book named is from a mirror website related to a community. RS6784 (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Not only the article is not notable for wiki, there is a high chance that this historical personality probably didn't exist. There is hardly any mention of this person in any reliable historical sources. About statues, I agree with RS6784, the current statue politics of the country is such that there have been many small squares, roads are named after fake and made up character from history and so are the statues made, mostly it has to do with caste politics which is prevalent in India. The content is mostly copied from a website called Jatland.com see the same page in hindi language on Jatland[35], the website is notorious for creating and making fake history specially of Jat caste to which this blog cum website belongs. See Sitush's list of sources which are to be removed on sight,[36], jatland.com is listed on top. The book eluded in the article i.e. 'Rankesari Jujhar Singh' written by Kunwar Panne Singh is either a fake book or written for castecruft of which there is no shortage in india, but the not reliable that is for sure. The note at the end of the article that this story was told by Thakur Deshraj, Deshraj was another such fake history writer also from the same community i.e. Jat. He was never reliable to begin with.Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I previously added the template to the article due to a lack of sources. Nothing seems to have changed in that time. The article has been up for far too long without a single reliable source.RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:30, 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 merge to Buolick. Star Mississippi 03:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buolick (electoral division)[edit]

Buolick (electoral division) (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 of this article is about electoral divisions in general, rather than about Buolick. There are 3440 electoral divisions in Ireland, which despite the name, since the foundation of the state have mostly been used as census divisions. I can't see how any one of these reaches the Wikipedia:Notability standards. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to the "main" Buolick article. While the proposed target title (currently) only covers the civil parish, it could also easily accommodate a sentence about the electoral division. And, while the original author (in a vague and unsupported way, as noted by the nom) states that not all civil parishes (CP) are coterminous with the equivalent electoral division (ED), in the case of this ED, there is barely a 1% difference in the borders/scope. (Per the related entries in the placenames commission database, there is perhaps a half-square mile of less-than-perfect overlap in the southwest "corner" of the ED. Where the ED is slightly small than the CP). As noted by the nom, we probably don't need a standalone article to cover that minor factoid (and certainly not one that supports/puffs it out with generalised explanations of what an ED is). Otherwise, per WP:GEOLAND, we can easily cover this text in "the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it". In short, the "main" Buolick article could easily cover both the ED and the CP. As is the case in a majority of other articles on Irish places (where, for example, a village and a CP share a name. Or (as is often the case) a townland, village, CP, and/or ED share a name, etc.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per Guliolopez. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Guliolopez for highlighting the relevant parts of the notability standards! The same principles probably apply in the case of the other pages in Category:Electoral divisions in North Tipperary and Category:Electoral divisions in County Tipperary. Should I separately nominate them for discussion, or if our decision is to merge, do so after the discussion here closes? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Iveagh Gardens. I don't think its fait-accompli. Even if the outcome of this AfD is merge/redirect/delete, I'm not sure the same outcome will be immediately transfer. Some of those EDs might have independent notability or relevance. And not all will be quite so coterminous with any related or "overlapping" geo-topics. IMO, a separate WP:BEFORE would likely be required on each. Guliolopez (talk) 20:49, 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. Blatant vandalism, with no meaningful content. JBW (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenesis[edit]

Gwenesis (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 has been repeatedly re-created following deletion. It has never had any content worth preserving. I'd kindly ask that this be salted and deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#3. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:40, 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 06:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Bal[edit]

Yevgeny Bal (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-pro second-tier Belarusian footballer with no apparent significant coverage. Google News has a number of hits, most of which relate to a Ukrainian journalist of the same name who died recently. The hits that are relevant are mere squad list mentions like football.by and gs.by. I had no better luck when searching the Belarusian version of his name. In fact, I could not find anything significant at all about this particular Yevgeny Bal so WP:GNG is likely failed here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:30, 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 redirect to Formosa Taishin Dreamers. Star Mississippi 03:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formosa Sexy[edit]

Formosa Sexy (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 suffers from a dearth of sourcing, which in large part is due to the general lack of substantial sourcing about the Formosa Sexy that is separate from coverage of the Formosa Taishin Dreamers. In fact, it doesn't really look like this group is independently notable from the Formosa Taishin Dreamers. The article should be redirected to the article on the basketball team, where the basketball cheerleaders are more naturally covered. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:27, 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 merge to Arthrogryposis. as the latter suggested redirects here as well. Star Mississippi 03:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthrogryposis multiplex with deafness, inguinal hernias, and early death[edit]

Arthrogryposis multiplex with deafness, inguinal hernias, and early death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a WP:CFORK that's based entirely off of a single primary medical study, which gives weight to this complex that the source says has affected three people. I looked to see if there were other reliable sources that might cover this by checking sources that cite the study, but none seem to give this particular multiplex coverage beyond a couple of sentences—the article fails WP:GNG. As such, it seems more appropriate that this article be redirected to Arthrogryposis, where this topic can be given a sentence and covered in proper context (just as this review does). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:59, 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 redirect to List of CONMEBOL club competition winners. ✗plicit 06:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CONMEBOL club competition records and statistics[edit]

CONMEBOL club competition records and statistics (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)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and requires no original research. The article seems to be a listing of trivial statistics and it's not a well-defined list, so I really don't know what to do with this except to redirect to List of CONMEBOL club competition winners. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:36, 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 merge to Jacksonville University. ✗plicit 06:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville University Life Sciences Museum[edit]

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

Notability Happyecheveria (talk) 05:03, 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 06:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puppetista[edit]

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

Notability Happyecheveria (talk) 04:45, 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 redirect to Sweden v. Yamaguchi. I have only done this with Wilson Jr. as the other articles were not tagged nor formally bundled. Can be handled editorially if there is consensus to do so. Star Mississippi 03:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilson Jr.[edit]

John Wilson Jr. (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)

Unreferenced biography of a person of unclear notability. This is basically written as a cross between the "subject is a person who had a job" and "subject is a person who had a genealogy" versions of Wikipedia notability fail, and it isn't supported by any reliable sources -- with the added bonus that it's been tagged for lacking referencing since 2009 without ever seeing a whit of improvement in 13 years since. None of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 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. Star Mississippi 03:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stiff Jab[edit]

Stiff Jab (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)

Topic cannot meet WP:GNG. Nothing in this article constitutes Notability or SIGCOV about the topic itself nor have I found it online. This is a Medium.com website. The bottom line of the first paragraph reads, "Unlike most online boxing sites, Stiff Jab is considered a credible news source, as evidenced by the many websites[13] and journalists[14][15] who link[16] to its content." There has to be multiple, independent RS with SIGCOV to constitute GNG for Wikipedia's purposes. Source 1 is about a pro boxer and topic receives a trivial, 5 word mention in the article as "a prominent boxing Web site". Source 2 is an interview with the topic's founder and Joe Frazier on NPR. No coverage about topic. Source 3 is an interview with the topic's founder about Muhammad Ali, not the topic. Source 4 is a trivial mention at the bottom of the page regarding a Detroit Free Press interview, which is again, not about the topic. Source 5 is unavailable. There is no mention of topic in Source 6. Source 7 is a video from MSNBC where the topic's founder, whom was introduced as a staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, makes a few comments about Floyd Mayweather v Manny Pacquiao. The source is not about the topic itself again. Source 8 is an article written by the founder himself for the Wall Street Journal, which does not make it a NPOV source. Source 9 is another trivial mention on the bottom of the page. Source 10 is another article written by the founder himself which does not make it a NPOV source. Source 11 is a guest article from Stiff Jab editor posted on Ring.com. There is no content about the topic itself in this source, nor is the topic even mentioned. Source 12 is unavailable. Source 13 is a link to a Stiff Jab article written by the founder. Source 14 is a quote from the topic's founder. The article is not about the topic at all. Source 15 I read through twice and did not find a mention of the topic. Source 16 references the topic's founder writing a boxing article for the Washington Post. Source 17 is a link to the founder's personal LinkedIn profile. Source 18, no mention of topic. Source 19, no mention of topic. Source 20 is unavailable. Source 21 references Source 22, which is an article written by the topic's founder on NPR.org. I suppose if the topic's founder has a relationship with NPR, as he does other new's sources, I'm unsure how the sources could constitute NPOV in any capacity when he writes the articles. Regardless, the source is still not about the topic. Source 23 is an article directly from topic's own website. Source 24 is a Medium.com blog post copied and pasted from the topic's own website. Source 25 is unavailable. Source 26 is an article from the topic's own website. Source 27 is another article from the topic's own website. I apologize for the long winded nom here my fellow editors, but this looks like WP:CITEKILL. There are nearly 30 citations on this page and not 1 of them covers the topic. I wanted to go through them one by one before I nominated it as I read on the topic's talk page about how notable this topic is. In addition to the lack of coverage, the assertion in the opening line of the article that the topic is frequently cited by journalists and publications only applies to 2 of the sources, and I don't even know if they could be considered NPOV because the topic's founder has a relationship to them. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject. Sandals2 (talk) 20:33, 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 07:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Horror Museum[edit]

Hollywood Horror Museum (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:ORG. Most of the reliable coverage on this entity is routinary, and it has actually decreased through time, as it has never been more than a project. The only sources that go into more detail are blogs, reddit posts and other sources taking their info from the organisation itself. There is some indirect coverage of the entity in articles discussing the founder's alleged legal problems, but they're described as not reliable by some editors (they seem COI editors, but they probably have a point anyways...). A possible alternative solution may be to turn the article into a redirect to Huston Huddleston, as most of the coverage on the entity is related to him. Urbanoc (talk) 02:54, 16 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 03:34, 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 no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ural Rakhimov[edit]

Ural Rakhimov (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 hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO Bash7oven (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't really see anything about what makes this person notable. He might have "significant coverage in reliable sources," but that's only one part of GNG; the sources say that he's rich, but that's about all they say. Simply being rich and studying at a particular college do not make a person notable. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:51, 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. Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ridings[edit]

Andy Ridings (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 "known" only for supporting and bit parts. As always, actors don't get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because acting roles have happened -- the notability test isn't in the ability to list acting roles, it's in the ability to support the acting roles with reliable source coverage about him and his roles in media in order to demonstrate that the roles have been externally validated as significant, but there are absolutely no sources here to support any of the content at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 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 no consensus (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prepositional adverb[edit]

Prepositional adverb (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)

Unsourced and not notable. The phenomenon itself is notable, and is discussed in our article Phrasal verb. However this particular terminology and implied category is not one that linguists would recognize. A Google search shows that a few language teachers are using the phrase, but not serious sources, and not enough to make this "a thing". In language history, words do migrate from one part of speech to another, and there is nothing unusual about dig sometimes being a verb and sometimes a noun, or down sometimes a preposition and sometimes an adverb. Prepositions and adverbs do often have the same form in many languages, but "prepositional adverb" is not a standard term. Delete or possibly convert to a redirect? Doric Loon (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the article's WP:OR and its use of terminological quackery. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linguists would recognize it, not least from its entry in Chalker's and Weiner's 1998 Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar where it is on page 311. It's in Blake's 1988 Traditional English Grammar and Beyond, too. I hardly think that either Edmund Weiner or Norman Blake invents "terminological quackery". Very poor research, people. Uncle G (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The terms themselves aren't quackery; the quackery is in the article's convoluted use of the terms – so much convolution and conflation beyond simple fixes, esp. since the subject matter is well covered elsewhere. Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject matter is not covered in that article--and of course it's not covered well in this current article, but that's not for AfD. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linguists do recognize it (present!), and besides by Uncle's book hits, JSTOR is full of references where the term is used commonly. And if the Shakespeare Quarterly has proper editorial control against quackery, then we can even speak of a "quasi-prepositional adverb". Paull F. Baum (needs an article--look at what links there) recognized as "bi" (in Beowulf l. 3047) as a prepositional adverb, and five examples as "mid", and that article is so ancient that he calls it "the Beowulf". Worth citing as a possible example of 1902 quackery is Gildersleeve, Basil L. (1902). "Problems in Greek Syntax". The American Journal of Philology. 23 (1): 1–27.: "We can see how habit brings about love (consuetuda concinnat amorem)--how the independence of the prepositional adverb gives way to the seduction of the verb". I don't know what he means but it sure is pretty. So, keep.
    (As for grammar, modern grammarians like Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum and Drmies would simply call it a preposition and do away with that whole nonsensical "must govern a noun" nonsense, but that's for another day. Still, Doric Loon, this isn't really about Denominal verb or Deverbal noun--this isn't a matter of diachronic linguistics; it's a matter of definition, and the influence of 18th-c linguists--some of whom were indeed quacks who in turn influenced more quacks, which is how we end up with a bunch of silly "rules" and the intellectual laziness of the College Board.) Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect) because it's unsourced, doesn't say much, and I believe the topic is best treated elsewhere (preposition and/or adverb) - it could redirect to Preposition and postposition#Adverbs and particles as it should NOT redirect to English phrasal verbs as that's specific for English. But as others points out, there's not actually any quackery or the like to the term itself (which could argue for a redirect). Replayful (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replayful, "unsourced" is not an argument for deletion; it has been pointed out in this AfD that at least two books and two academic articles discuss the term. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was G11. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somdip Dey[edit]

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

The article has been 1st nominated for WP:G5 speedy delete and then suggested for AfD by @Justlettersandnumbers. The concerning article was created and mainly maintained by banned user @IMLone_wolf. This biographic article looks much like an intricated case of WP:CLOAK, WP:MASK to fabricate notability. The same user was also the primary creator and editor of several associated wiki pages of a related startup company and its products (viz. WP:SOAP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias2934 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tayabas Western Academy[edit]

Tayabas Western Academy (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 enough coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Article was created by a likely sock with cut-and-paste move from the draft which had failed AfC recently before creation. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 01:53, 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Robertson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Martin Robertson (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)
Was prodded by an IP with the rationale

Barring one measly 20 year citation, the extent of the rather bare webpage in question stands, unsourced, hence why I opt for deletion vis-à-vis the nomination process.

However, it was previously prodded so I'm procedurally moving this to AFD Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singrauli State[edit]

Singrauli State (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)

Almost zero coverage of this princely state online (as compared to a zamindari with the same name) except for its own website, would fail WP:NOTABILITY. Scratchinghead (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the article to cover a "Singrauli" that was missing across Wikipedia. Now that I have realized that it was boosterized by vandal U. Baba and by HistoricGeek2345. I have realized that it should be deleted. Scratchinghead (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this article, it seems to be relevant in the history of india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have never seen an instance where an actual state such as this has been deemed to be non-notable. However, this is an odd case. According to one of the sources cited in the article, Singrauli was not a princely state in its own right but part of the state of Rewa.[37] And I can find no record in the London Gazette of the knighthoods claimed to have been awarded to three of the maharajas. KStJ (Knight of St John) is awarded for service to that order, does not confer a title and would be unlikely to be awarded to an Indian maharaja. I have to question the accuracy of this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is an elaborate hoax. There is a city and a modern district of the name, which are being used for facts and external links to make this article seem more plausible, but generic sources like worldstatesmen.org mention Rewa but not a Singrauli. Stan (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as HOAX -- If this was a princely state, I would expect there to be an article: every UK peerage has an article; and Indian princes ruled, which British lords did not. However as Necrothesp has pointed out it was part of the state of Rewa. I am not sure of viceroys could award knighthoods, but if they could, these might not be gazetted in London. However the Encylopaedia Britannica in dealing with Bagelkhand Agency does not support its existence. That article has been subject to vandalism and needs to be reverted further see [38]. I was nearly taken in by this hoax, which seems tom have been well prepared about last February. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of forged maps alone is just amazing: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HistoricGeek2345. I have a hard time thinking of why anyone would go to that much trouble... Stan (talk) 21:43, 29 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_23&oldid=1095254508"