Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 28	May 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie Howard[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have adequate sourcing here to justify a biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Love (JoJo song)[edit]

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

Although there is some reasonable coverage there is a lot that is unreliably sourced including directlyrics, thatgrapejuice, breatheheavy, popcrush, thatgrapejuice (again), Restless nation. What information is left could be used to boost the album page, particularly as the song didn't chart. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 19:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Runner (1999 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety. Needs one more suitable and reliable review in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per User:ReaderofthePack’s improvements to the article. The Film Creator (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1: the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy (1995 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety; needs one more suitable and reliable review in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the NYTimes review, I added one from the Daily News [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few more reviews - this is one where it was a little difficult, as there were so many false positives. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 12:17, 31 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. Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1: the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hacks (1997 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Has only one review from Variety (needs two or more suitable & reliable reviews in order to be eligible). I found no other suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews in Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination per User:ReaderofthePack’s article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1928 in American television[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009. Too few things happened in these years, very early in TV's life, for a list to exist per WP:SALAT. Hell, the 1927, 1926, and 1929 lists only have one item each! Prods contested on all four by Matt91486 (talk · contribs) who argued WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, and also the following page, which was also deprodded and will be added to this nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'm confused by 1927 in American television especially. The founding of CBS's predecessor as a radio company is not really about television. Perhaps there can be a Timeline of early American television or similar if someone wants to compile these. Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And why are there no other lists for 1931-1971? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lists are valid. If you want to merge a decade together, then you can have a merge discussion for that. They are valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 14:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A list with only one item on it is "valid"? Also WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a "valid" argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only one with only one item on it is is 1926 in American television. And I said, short list can be merged to a large one if necessary. Did you only notice the things listed in events and not the births section? Dream Focus 15:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even adding the births, that's still barely a "list". Just about everything involving television prior to 1940ish could probably fit on one list because the medium was still in development. But given that no other lists exist between 1930 and 1972, I'm not convinced that any of these lists meet WP:NLIST. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these lists are far too short to be useful. They also are implying an idea that there was a braodcast media collection when no such thing existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources to meet WP:NLIST and navigation purposes are best served by the category instead. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of valid concerns voiced here, but I'm confused why deleting everything in bulk is even an option being considered? Why not merge all salvageable pieces into something like 1920s in American television instead? Or indeed, into a timeline of early American television as Reywas suggested above, if 1920s still don't have enough information for a separate page?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2022; 19:49 (UTC)

Even if you combined all these lists into one, there'd still be a very small number of "events" that actually qualify as pertaining to the history of television. Furthermore, the timeline jumps all the way ahead to the mid 70s, so unless someone fills in those gaps it'd look imbalanced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear what you're saying, but "imbalanced" and "incomplete" are simply not valid reasons for actual deletion. By that measure most of Wikipedia's contents should go to trash!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 4, 2022; 04:32 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Cortinas[edit]

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

Absolutely lacks notability. One very brief role on One Life to Live, and has since retired from acting. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge or redirect' to One Life to Live. If merged, the role she played should be added provided it is significant enough to get billing. If not, then~~ deleting is the way to go because redirects are typically removed by diehard fans or COI editors, despite the lack of notability. Atsme 💬 📧 14:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC) ^{Changed to a full delete. 17:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the article stands, it clearly fails WP:GNG. There are no secondary references cited. --PaulPachad (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles need reliable sources, this article lacks any such thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia.IrishOsita (talk) 03:40, 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. ✗plicit 23:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dobies[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is way past time that we deleted every article on Wikipedia "sourced" only to IMDb, which is not reliable and thus should be sourcing nothing on Wikipedia at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only found glancing mentions, and the most significant stuff were one or two profiles in soap digests that I don't really think meet reliable source standards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:16, 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 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 23:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work[edit]

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

Is it really necessary to have a page of a "shadow office" for which there has only ever been one shadow minister and there is no direct corresponding government minister, but obviously a link/line of sight to DWP? There is little to no mention about what the shadow minister actually does nor has it proven to have gotten WP:SIGCOV in the media, other than pointing out its existence and the Raynor's appointment. General WP:GNG failure too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wake me up whenever there is more than 1. For the time being, this is, effectively, a political promotion page. XavierItzm (talk) 13:53, 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 Élmer Huerta. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to nomination withdrawn, with the merger taking place as an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hablemos de Salud[edit]

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

Deprodded with a source, but I couldn't find anything better in English or Spanish. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - I was literally in the process of merging/redirecting this. I deprodded this to say that I was going to merge/redirect this. matt91486 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"To have clarity for anyone coming to the AFD without seeing the edit history on the article, it should be merged/redirected to the host, Élmer Huerta. matt91486 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and merge then and I'll speedy-close. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the relevant text to the Huerta article, so this can now be closed and then redirected after that, (but technically that's the order we need). matt91486 (talk) 21:12, 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. ✗plicit 00:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Sessions[edit]

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

First source isn't about the show, third source is primary. Extremely anemic article with no better sourcing in sight.. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Robbins, Caryn (2016-08-19). "Dave Matthews Band to Be Featured on Neighborhood Sessions Series on TNT, 9/11". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "... will be presented as part of Neighborhood Sessions, an ongoing series of music specials created by State Farm. The special, produced by Live Nation and directed by Danny Clinch, will feature powerful stories from the local community profiling some of the people who continue to impact the band members' lives and music. Neighborhood Sessions featuring Dave Matthews Band marks the third special in the Neighborhood Sessions series, which gives the biggest names in music a chance to thank THE NEIGHBORS who helped make them who they are today, and who continue to help life go right for members of their communities every day. ... The Neighborhood Sessions series of specials began in February 2015 with megastar Jennifer Lopez performing in her hometown of the Bronx. It was followed in October by a special featuring music superstar Toby Keith, whose concert was taped in his hometown of Moore, Oklahoma."
2. Gienapp, Emmett (2016-09-07). "Usher expected to perform invitation-only Chattanooga show". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "The performance is part of the State Farm Neighborhood Sessions series that features performances by artists in their hometowns or places that inspired them during their career. Jennifer Lopez kicked off the series in the Bronx in 2014 followed by Toby Keith in Norman, Okla., last year. Dave Matthews recorded a TV special for the series in his hometown in Charlottesville, Va., that will air on TNT on Sunday. As part of the series, State Farm offers seed money to local charities, and the beneficiaries of Chattanooga's concert will be arts and education programs."
3. Roterman, Natalie (2015-02-15). "Jennifer Lopez Returned To Childhood Home In The Bronx For TNT's 'Neighborhood Sessions' Special". Latin Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "Jennifer Lopez returned to her block for TNT’s "Neighborhood Sessions With Jennifer Lopez," where she visited several places around the borough, including her childhood home. The special also featured her first concert in the Bronx, which took place last June in Orchard Beach. ... The new show “Neighborhood Specials” is a series of music specials in which performers highlight the communities where they come from. ... The episode aired on February 14, after the NBA All-Star Game on TNT and Vod."
4. Miller, Victoria Leigh (2015-02-13). "J.Lo Goes Home: See Her Emotional Trip Back to Where It All Began". Yahoo! Entertainment. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "Jennifer Lopez dared to dream — and it panned out pretty well for her. For the upcoming TNT special Neighborhood Sessions With Jennifer Lopez, the international superstar went back to her old stomping grounds to show fans (and her kids!) where it all began for her. ... Each episode of TNT Neighborhood Sessions specials, which kicks off with Lopez this weekend, will feature a different artist returning to his or her hometown for a special concert to pay homage to the communities."
5. "Usher to Highlight Music & Arts Education with "Neighborhood Sessions" TV Special". ABC News Radio. 2016-11-16. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "If you're looking for something to watch while getting ready for a Thanksgiving feast, Usher has got your back. The superstar is heading to TNT's Neighborhood Sessions for a special Thanksgiving Eve broadcast."
6. "Usher to be showcased on TNT's "Neighborhood Sessions"". WRCB. 2016-11-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "Grammy Award-winning R&B singer Usher will be showcased on TNT's newest edition of "Neighborhood Sessions", a series of music specials created by State Farm. Throughout the episode, Usher will highlight the importance of music and arts education in childhood development, and introduce viewers to people in the Chattanooga area who are positively impacting their community."
7. Rancilio, Alicia (2015-02-12). "Jennifer Lopez returns to 'the block' in TNT special". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "Jenny returns to the block for TNT's "Neighborhood Sessions With Jennifer Lopez," airing after the NBA All-Star Saturday Night. In the special, the performer revisits some of the places in the Bronx borough of New York where she grew up, including her childhood home. She also performs her first Bronx concert at Orchard Beach. ... "Neighborhood Sessions" is a new series of music specials where performers highlight the communities where they come from."
8. "Jennifer Lopez regresó a su barrio, El Bronx, para el especial de TNT" [Jennifer Lopez returned to her neighborhood, The Bronx, for the TNT special] (in Spanish). Telemundo. 2015-02-23. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
  The article notes: "Jenny regresó a su barrio para el especial de TNT’s ”Neighborhood Sessions with Jennifer Lopez" (Sesiones del vecindario con Jennifer Lopez.) "Neighborhood Sessions" es una nueva serie de especiales musicales en donde los artistas hablan de las comunidades de donde ellos vinieron."
9. Less significant coverage:
  1. Shattuck, Kathryn (2016-11-23). "What's on TV Wednesday: '20/20: The Real Designated Survivor' and Usher in 'Neighborhood Sessions'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "Neighborhood Sessions 10 p.m. on TNT. Usher performs some of his biggest hits in Chattanooga, Tenn., on behalf of the Nancy Lackey Community Education Fund, named for his grandmother, which supports music and art in schools and after-school programs."
  2. Butler, Karen (2015-02-01). "Jennifer Lopez's first Bronx concert to air on TNT on Feb. 14". United Press International. Archived from the original on 2015-03-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "TNT says it plans to air Jennifer Lopez's first concert in her native Bronx, N.Y., on Feb. 14. The show is to be taped at Orchard Beach as part of the Neighborhood Sessions, a concert series organized by the cable television network and State Farm Insurance."
  3. Kirby, Sarah; Burke, Mack (2015-09-02). "Toby Keith keeps promise to soldier with neighborhood concert". CNHI. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "The event was filmed for State Farm Neighborhood Sessions, a series that brings big-name acts back to their hometowns to pay tribute to those who inspired them."
  4. Cooper, Matt (2016-09-11). "TV This Week, Sept. 11-17: 'Sister Cities' and more". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "The Dave Matthews Band kicks out the jams in their hometown of Charlottesville, Va., on a new “Neighborhood Sessions.” 10 p.m. TNT"
  5. Cain, Brooke (2016-09-11). "What to Watch on Sunday: 'Churchill's Secret,' 'Masters of Sex' are new". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "Neighborhood Sessions: Dave Matthews Band (10 p.m., TNT) – The band plays in their hometown of Charlottesville, Va., as a warm-up for their 25th anniversary tour."
  6. "TV Weekend: The future of nation at stake in 'BrainDead'". Lansing State Journal. 2016-09-10. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "•“Neighborhood Sessions,” 10 p.m., TNT. This is the third special with a hometown performance by a star. Dave Matthews – born in South Africa, raised in three countries – has had many homes, but this concert is in Charlottesville, Va., where he started his band 25 years ago."
  7. Justin, Neal (2015-02-12). "TV picks for Feb. 13-15: Kevin Hart, 'SNL,' Jennifer Lopez, SI's 'Swimsuit 2015'". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "She may still be Jenny from the block, but she's actually never played a proper concert in her hometown. That all changes with "Neighborhood Sessions With Jennifer Lopez," a musical special taped at Orchard Beach in the Bronx. Bling optional. 10 p.m. Saturday, TNT"
  8. Holcomb-Holland, Lori (2015-02-14). "What's on TV Saturday". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.
    The article notes: "11 P.M. (TNT) NEIGHBORHOOD SESSIONS WITH JENNIFER LOPEZ The first episode of this series, which sends artists back to the communities where they grew up, features Ms. Lopez giving a concert in the Bronx and visiting the people and places that influenced her life and career."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Neighborhood Sessions to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple sources provided by Cunard above. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard has found clear evidence the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 20:28, 31 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 Peter Barnes (journalist). ✗plicit 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Gains[edit]

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

Unsourced stub, no sourcing found, deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peter Barnes (journalist). BD2412 T 22:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine. Trying to find any coverage when it's a common phrase is difficult. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 02:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Bound[edit]

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

No sources, none found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of sources. Additional regional coverage is at startribune.com and twincities.com .Kablammo (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 1,000 episodes must have garnered significant coverage, no? Bearian (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It did, apparently. Perhaps the best solution here is to change the article title to "Ron Schara" (which has well over 10k google hits) and redirect this article to the retitled article on Schara. Kablammo (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added citations for the information contained in the stub article. That should suffice. Myotus (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two citations as well and believe the sourcing now meets notability guidelines. Some of the sources mention regional Emmy award wins but I'm having trouble identifying exactly which ones. -Eóin (talk) 18:06, 5 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 Cassandra Peterson#Filmography. ✗plicit 00:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira's Halloween Special[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cassandra Peterson#Filmography, which already says all that there is to say about this subject. BD2412 T 22:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. I have already merged what I could to that list. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 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 speedy keep. Article was substantially improved during AFD, so I'm withdrawing. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Drag[edit]

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

Deprodded with sources, but still seems like a textbook WP:TOOSOON. Not enough verifiable info exists about the show beyond "it will soon exist". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless it's improved soon, it's just too soon. Have you tagged possible contributors? Bearian (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bearian! I've worked to expand it beyond a stub and wondered if you'd be willing to review again and see if you think it now meets notability requirements? Thanks! --Kbabej (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. The show has premiered and User:Kbabej has expanded the stub appropriately. (Thanks!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. The show has been covered by multiple RS, including ScreenRant, People, The Advocate, Ad Week, The Daily Beast, Collider, Queerty, NewNowNext, and the Christian Broadcasting Network, all of which currently appear in the article. The subject has been the subject of both praise and criticism for the concept. And, now that the first episode has aired, it's not too soon. —Kbabej (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 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. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer (fails WP:NBOX) whose only claim to fame is being knocked out by a notable boxer (WP:BLP1E). WP:BEFORE found no significant coverage outside his loss to Tyson. – ².O.^Boxing 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and United States of America. ².O.^Boxing 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTPUGOFTHEMONTH. He also lost to Randall "Tex" Cobb. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Losing to Tyson in 38 seconrds is not grounds for notability. Lost more fights than he won. Doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NBOXING.Sandals2 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a big name boxer is willing to go into the ring with you to clobber you does not mean you are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 31 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 00:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo EDC[edit]

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

Article about an organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2017-05 ✗ A7

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aggie Pati[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:56, 29 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) 19:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG --PaulPachad (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:06, 31 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 00:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiaoali Savea[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:53, 29 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) 19:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:06, 31 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 Calabrian regional election. ✗plicit 00:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Italian regional elections[edit]

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

Only one election in 2021 Panam2014 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Calabrian regional election if that's the only one. Reywas92^Talk 22:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Calabrian regional election, and if there is another (I can't recall off of the top of my head right now the 2021 election calendar), someone can recreate this page. XavierItzm (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Calabrian regional election, AFAICS from the Ministry of the Interior webpage only one election in 2021. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:59, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deep River Science Academy[edit]

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

Article about a non-profit organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - defunct educational non-profit, poorly sourced article, unlikely to have more coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Higher Education Canada[edit]

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

Article about a non-profit organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Undergraduate Mathematics Conference[edit]

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

Article about a non-profit organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Alliance of Christian Schools[edit]

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

Article about a non-profit organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2011-10 ✗ G11

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Bureau for International Education[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a non-profit organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Education Association[edit]

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

Article about a non-profit organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2020-06 How People Learn (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shein's Contributions to Global Climate Crisis[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY, this is not written in article tone and was written by a student editor who just moved it into mainspace after it was deleted thrice (under U5 twice and under G11 twice). The editors only edit outside own userspace was on an admins tp requesting undeletion because it was "Due Friday", which is exactly the day that this was moved to mainspace.

I was going to just prod it, but against PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected, I believe the original author would just deny it. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 19:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Environment. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 19:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, not suitable for Wikipedia, and there is no hope of merging. @IAmChaos: I also found this similar article with the same issues: Fast fashion's impact on the climate crisis in China. Could you consider bundling into this AfD? Jumpytoo Talk 21:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo or anyone else, please feel free to bundle. I am not at all familiar with AfD, I mostly hang around RfD. Don't worry about WP:TPO, You can modify what I put on this page. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I propose bundling Recycling in China as well, as another article from the same WikiEd course. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 21:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch more articles here that you may want to review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UC_San_Diego/HIEA_140_China_since_1978_(Spring_2022) CT55555 (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Changing Food Consumption in China is currently under a PROD. The other few I glanced at seem old, and the assignment was to work on them and I don't have the time right now to review the individual contributions. User:Tnlu/sandbox is listed there as well, although hasnt been worked on in a month and probably would be unmoved by a NPR on first glance in the current state (no lead, one ref tag). Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 01:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the Wiki Ed instructors & staff relating to the class the creator is in as a courtesy notice: @FanZiben:, @Helaine (Wiki Ed):, @Ian (Wiki Ed):. Jumpytoo Talk 21:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified WP:EDUN Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 21:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an essay CT55555 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Shein article. Keep the referenced stuff. Trim down any WP:UNDUE. XavierItzm (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with what's been posted above, but holy cow, this is a mess, on so many levels. WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Career Colleges Ontario[edit]

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

Article about a non-profit organization, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself and/or government documents rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Tech Engineering Students' Society[edit]

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

Article about a university student society, referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not "inherently" notable just because their own web presence offers technical verification that they exist; the notability test is the reception of third party coverage and analysis about them in independent reliable sources, such as media coverage and/or books. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 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 Yamaha Motor Company. ✗plicit 00:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha Crux[edit]

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

More than half the article was cruft, and without it, it becomes obvious that there is a single primary source. Lucksash (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Yamaha Motor Company. Jacona (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is acceptable. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yorlin Madera[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. It is time that we stopped treating it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 31 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 00:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Harte (American actor)[edit]

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

Absolutely lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His acting roles are not enough to show notability, and his businessrole is amazingly enough even less important.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 31 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.

Felicity LaFortune[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bgsu98 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources I added, WP:NACTOR notability is supported for her work in television and on Broadway. Beccaynr (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This actor was in the main cast of two major soap operas, and played roles in several Broadway shows, in addition to other TV work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on information added by Beccaynr and Ssilvers. Additionally, I am in the process of adding more sourced content. Aerupert (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, based on great work by rookie editor Aerupert and established editor Beccaynr. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerri Southcott[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a former television personality, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for television personalities. This is a 15-year-old holdover from an era when we had a bad habit of extending an automatic presumption of notability to any television personality so long as their existence was technically verified by a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer -- but that's long since been deprecated, and we're much clearer now that a television personality has to clear WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about her in sources independent of her own employers.
But there's only one reliable or notability-supporting source here (an Ottawa Citizen article from 2008), which isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly get her over the bar all by itself, and this is otherwise referenced entirely to directory entries, press releases, glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events she was the PR person for, and content self-published by her own employers, none of which are notability-building sources at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one hit of GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well-reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator Bearcat and Mr. Lambert. IrishOsita (talk) 03:38, 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. insufficient evidence to indicate they meet WP:ORG Star Mississippi 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young India Foundation[edit]

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

Does not seem to cross the notability threshold per WP:NORG – the page reads like an advertisement and mostly describes what the organisation intends to do. Yet, their actual achievement seems to be a campaign whose website [2] is currently dead. They also have scored one TED talk, one TV interview, and two articles in The Logical Indian and Youth Ki Awaaz, both generally considered WP:UNRELIABLE. The remaining references are to YouTube and Twitter. The organisation's most recent Facebook post is from July 2021,[3] their tweets have also been rather sparse.[4]

According to Indian Government data, Young India Foundation was registered only in 2019.[5]

Overall, despite the current promotional language, I see little about this organisation suitable for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that the website of the Why 25 campaign is still up. I don't understand how an official TED Talk alongside multiple TEDx talks is unworthy of notability for the user and their work. YIF's work is far different than any other organization as it helps young people from independent backgrounds be elected to office.

The Hindu has also covered Young India Foundation and the work they do for India's young.

The remaining references are of interviews that are on Youtube. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, YIF's Instagram presence is quite active. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGCRIT: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

A "shared" article in The Hindu plus (scant) social media activity doesn't really cut it.

The three latest Instagram posts are from 13th May, 21st April and 22nd January. Less than one post a month!

The Why25 web page is a section of the main organisational website, not an additional online presence.

In short, there's not only lack of coverage in independent sources (barring a single article in The Hindu) – there's little in terms of evidence of any activity by the organisation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. The single Hindu article isn't enough for notability. Hemantha (talk) 07:30, 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 keep. Editors are encouraged to add any of the sources to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrwhosetheboss[edit]

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

WP:GNG Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason provided by the proposer. Skyshifter ^talk 01:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG? Yes, I do agree that he passes GNG, not unequivocally, but just barely. Now why don't you see if you can change your degree for how you determine notability?

...If you didn't understand my bars, I'm voting a Keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets GNG to an extent, and I did a small search for sources, there are some, so the article could probably be fixed up. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 10:06, 1 June 2022
Comment - After a few days of searching, I have also found multiple other sources about his work in addition to the ones I posted already. For starters, his 3D smartphone hologram video has been the subject of multiple RS, including The Daily Dot, CNBC, Motherboard (Vice), two Huffington Post articles, and even on Time magazine. I added the former two sources in the article a few days ago.

Various other videos of his have been used for analytical purposes regarding technology, such as in Insider, BGR, The Verge, and The Indian Express. Also, one of his videos explaining an Instagram mystery was also the subject of significant coverage as well in an article from UNILAD.

Finally, he won a Streamy Award in 2021 for the category of Technology, passing #2 of WP:WEBCRIT. I think Mrwhosetheboss definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The sources demonstrably show that he is a notable tech YouTuber whose videos have been showcased and described in multiple sources. I stand by my Keep vote. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the article fails the notability guidelines. Also the sources mentioned above are just brief mentions and are not good at establishing notability per WP:REFBOMB. Sahaib (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage per above to meet GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Kempe (actor)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 31 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 18:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Initiative (Italy)[edit]

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

Unknown mini-component of the mixed group in the Chamber of Deputies, existed for a short time: the relevance of this subject is not demonstrated neither by the page nor by the existence of sources. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Liberal Initiative was a short-lived, but real political party, even if today its memory is virtually vanished: that is what encyclopedias are all about! Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias deal with relevant and / or interesting topics. Here we are talking about a mere component of the mixed group (not a real party) totally unknown and without relevance. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per absence of reliable, third-party sources. Yakme (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete rather obscure party, which didn't participate in any election at any level. It seems to have existed just as a parliamentary group. P1221 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the details of it might make sense mentioned on the respective politicians' page (if they are themselves notable, which is up in the air), but there's no sourcing demonstrating the exceed the GNG threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Right[edit]

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

Unknown party, which has never participated in Italian political life. It is practically impossible to find sources on this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Federal Right was a short-lived political party, but played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Italy's centre-right parties in the aftermath of the centre-right coalition's victory in the 2008 general election. It was established by Stefano Morselli, a former leading senator, and, as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Italy's centre-right parties in the aftermath of the centre-right coalition's victory in the 2008 general election"?? Please, don't joke... Stefano Morselli is an encyclopedic politician, not this party, the principle of translational property does not apply in cases like this. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are little to no third-party sources on this "movement" (which was composed of two people, as far as I understand from the article?). It can become a sentence in the article about The Right (Italy). Yakme (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete rather obscure party in Italian political landscape. There aren't reliable sources showing that this party took part to any election at whatsoever level in Italy. As per the source posted in the article, the founder Stefano Morselli run unsuccessfully for mayor in Bologna under a different party... P1221 (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are more about Morselli than the party. NO indication of significance. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) interstate five 22:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Reiners[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified in the previous AfD discussion, which can be incorporated into the article to support WP:NACTOR notability, as well as the sources I have added. Beccaynr (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified in the previous AfD discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the extra references to reliable sources coverage that have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 6 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 merge to Callander and Oban Railway#Ben Cruachan Quarry Branch. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cruachan Quarry Branch[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources currently cited in the article and it has a very marginal claim for inclusion on Wikipedia besides. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. And trout the editor who de-PRODed this. A BEFORE search found a few brief mentions which confirm this line existed, but little else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless @Espresso Addict:, the de-prodder, can prove the sources they found exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A British branch line is highly likely to have offline sources available. At the very least, the content here including the diagram ought to be merged elsewhere and not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge or broaden article to include the quarry. For those coming into this discussion afresh, what's happened is that the nominator has decided that the source Railscot, which had 1489 links from articles, is unreliable, and after a discussion that started on 14 May, which involved three other editors, one of whom didn't exactly agree, none of whom are known to me from WP Scotland (which wasn't notified, as far as I can see), decided to remove all reference links to it, and has been rolling out that decision with uninformative edit summaries, and edits marked as minor. Further to that decision comes this prod, on an article which had been supported by this source (added this February to deal with a longstanding unreferenced tag). However, whether or not Railscot is reliable, the information there[6] appears to be broadly correct according to other sources. There are multiple sources available online which confirm the basics. Granites and Our Granite Industries [7] pp 94–95 has three paragraphs on the quarries with some details of the branch line. The West Highland Lines: Post-Beeching [8] pp 37–38 has details on the branch line and junction. JSTOR 4640644 article has a long paragraph/table on the quarries, and also other mentions elsewhere, discusses the railway's effect on livestock and mentions that it is now dismantled; it reproduces the OS map, confirming that the zigzag track is actually the dismantled railway. Some details [9] from a site on the Callander and Oban Railway. [10] from the The Signalling Record Society has brief info on the railway/junction. The Highlands and Islands of Scotland p. 193 [11] has some info (snippet view only). Google Books also gave a hit for Callander & Oban Railway Through Time [12] (no preview). The OS 1:25 000 mapping for grid ref NN12502945 clearly shows track zigzags serving a marked disused quarry. The railway is mentioned by the Scottish Mountaineering Club Journal as an ascent route onto Ben Cruachan [13] and there may well be more modern guidebooks that take that route but aren't on Google Books. Additionally, on the quarry, Dalmally Historical Society mention it in their timeline: [14]; as they publish a journal, there might well be more to be found there. [15] has quite a few details on the quarry. [16] discusses a lawsuit over the quarry, which is also covered in news coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All railroads and railroad lines, current and historical, should have articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do recognize that WP:NOPAGE applies here? There's no way a comprehensive article could be written on this subject. It should not be kept as a standalone article. Use of NOPAGE is frequently done with railroads which were very minor, only existed on paper, or otherwise do not merit a standalone page (e.g. the Middletown Extension Railroad). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are opposed to deletion, this can easily be merged to Callander and Oban Railway#Ben Cruachan Quarry Branch. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Callander and Oban Railway#Ben Cruachan Quarry Branch. Djflem (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Callander and Oban Railway#Ben Cruachan Quarry Branch. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge - this seems the way to go. While some industrial branch lines might be notable enough to have their own articles, but I do not think this is one of them. There might be an argument for an article on the quarry, but as it stands the Callander and Oban Railway article can cover this adequately. Dunarc (talk) 22:45, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Riaz Khan[edit]

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

No level of notability, only sources are youtube channels. Zippybonzo | talk 16:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources definitely fail WP:RS however the subject of the article has 2.94 million subscribers on Youtube. I would think that this generally points towards passing WP:N. As the article stands, I would lean towards deletion but I would likely keep for a WP:HEY. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 17:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Followers, likes, watches, subs are a bad measure of notability because there is no standard (not in terms of Wikipedia, but in general) for them - it is well documented that all of these can also be bought. We rely on significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a stat book for how many people watched a YT video. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have found and added at least one independent source tubefilter for him. There is another article FBR serves notice on journalist Imran Riaz Khan for income tax audit about his income tax issues. Insight 3 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – qualifies WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. He's mainstream news anchor, reporter and Journalist,^[1] who has worked on a few major mainstream news channels,^[2]^[3] been invited to many notable talk shows,^[4]^[5] criticized heavily for his income beyond means and links with the Military Establishment and the PTI, cited by peers, banned on traditional media,^[6]^[7] known for being close to ex prime minister imran Khan,^[8] many newsworthy allegations on him,^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12] by him^[13] and many more allegations and events.^[14]^[15] Radioactive (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Imran Riaz Khan Biography – Anchor & Journalist Age – Wife". Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "Samaa News Fired News Anchor Imran Riaz Khan for Supporting Imran Khan". Startup Pakistan. 9 April 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "Anchor Imran Riaz Khan joins Express News". The Namal. 10 May 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "Imran Riaz Khan Inside Story | Ex PM Imran Khan vs Imported Government | Pakistan News Room". BOL News. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ Khalid, Usama (4 May 2022). "Hoshyarian Eid Special | Imran Riaz Khan | 4th MAY 2022". Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "Islamabad: Anchor Imran Riaz Khan has reportedly been taken off air by Samaa TV. | Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF)". www.pakistanpressfoundation.org. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ Khan, Imad. "On the Wrong Side of the Government, Pakistani Journalists Turn to YouTube". CNET. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "PM postpones address to nation, discusses threat letter with journalists". Samaa. 30 March 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "Journalist Imran Khan who victim-blamed Noor Mukadam is reportedly a friend of Zahir Jaffer's lawyer". MM News TV. 12 August 2021. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "Anchor Imran Riaz Khan illegally killed Black & Grey Partridges in a protected area". The Pakistan Daily. 28 November 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ Mehmood, Munazza (11 August 2021). "Anchor Imran Riaz Khan Clarifies His Stance on 'Victim-Blaming' Noor Mukadam [Video]". Lens. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "Pakistani TV anchors' palace like houses and lavish life style raising many questions". PakDestiny. 5 November 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ Mustafa, Muahmmad (26 July 2020). "Sharif Brothers Corruption Plan Revealed Anchor Imran Riaz Khan". NetMag Pakistan. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "TV anchor's argument with female politician sparks criticism". Daily Times. 2 July 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
^ "FBR serves notice on journalist Imran Riaz Khan for income tax audit". Pakistan Today. 8 May 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

Comment – I've ton of references opened in other tabs, showing him qualifying WP:JOURNALISTS, WP:ANYBIO, WB:BASIC and even WP:GNG. Already added maybe 15 refs, but if I'll add more it'll look nothing less than refbombing (as it already kinda looks). Radioactive (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Article can be much improved due to Radioactive 's efforts and above reliable sources he located. Definitely worth keeping! Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is complete spam, the sources above aren't reliable sources and a laughably bad attempt to keep spam. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note for the closer that many of these keeps are without basis - the sources above are 1E or unreliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand as per sources provided by the user Radioactive above. Insight 3 (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He does seem notable according to links provided above and should be kept Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability WP:HEY. - Anjana Larka 08:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above but article needs a lot of work. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 19:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Booher[edit]

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

Biography of a murderer, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for criminals. As always, Wikipedia is not a "true crime" database that aspires to indiscriminately maintain articles about every individual person who was ever convicted of a crime -- to justify an article about a criminal, we need to see a reason why his crime would still be of enduring significance decades later.
But that's absent here, and the sourcing consists of one 70-year-old magazine article and one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, which is not even close to enough referencing to establish the permanent notability of a criminal. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Alberta. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Eventify. The individual who committed the murders is almost certainly not notable. However, I'm seeing a lot of sources that talk about the specific set of murders and show that the murder passes the ten-year test. These include coverage in the Encyclopedia of Murder (1962), Psychic Detectives: The Mysterious Use of Paranormal Phenomena in Solving True Crimes (2002), the Encyclopedia of World Crime (1989), and multiple sources attest to The Vernon Booher Murder Case (1979) as being about this specific set of murders. The MacLeans piece cited in the article was even written 21 years after the killings that Booher was hanged for occurred, so the event has shown itself to have enduring notability. Since WP:BIO1E lays out that [t]he general rule is to cover the event, not the person when a person is covered almost solely in the context of one event, and the event appears to be notable, the portions of the material that are well-sourced should be preserved for use in an article about the event that was the 1929 killings. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mass murder of four people is clearly notable. And plenty has been written about Booher and the killings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 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. ✗plicit 00:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Stubbs[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a former leader of a minor political party. To be fair, this was created at a time when leading any political party was accepted by Wikipedia as an "inherent" notability claim that paved over any problems with the sourcing -- but that's long since been deprecated, and leaders of minor political parties who were never themselves members of their party's caucus in the legislature for the purposes of passing WP:NPOL #1 are no longer accepted as notable if they can't be shown to pass WP:GNG on media coverage and analysis about their leadership.
But of the four footnotes here, two are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the two media hits (one of which is dead but was waybackable) both just glancingly namecheck his existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things -- and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't have googled, I only found a couple more brief glancing namechecks of his existence as a party leader and coincidental name matches for other Bruce Stubbses (primarily an Ontario government resource technician who died in a helicopter crash in 2003), with still no new sources that were actually about him in any non-trivial sense.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough (no, he doesn't get brownie points for having a notable daughter, either) to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alberta. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Alberta Party isn't a minor party, but moreso a smaller regional party; this makes it surprising to find that no sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of Stubbs exist in the archives. Fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 31 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, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Brush[edit]

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

I would like to take this to AFD as a possible hoax. I could find no sources online that this film exists; all references to it I could find either postdate or copy Wikipedia. The first of only two sources referring to the film is offline, and the second is a self-citation to an adaptation. I also have a hunch that the screenshot on the page may have been created for the page itself.

As for the tale that supposedly inspired the film, all I could find are retellings for children sometimes with comprehension activities, with no indications about its origin aside from being an unspecific "old Chinese folktale". Atlantis536 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wu, Weihua (2017). Chinese Animation, Creative Industries, and Digital Culture. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-61108-4. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Zhang [Songlin] noted that the Chinese School began to explore the minzu style in two short films, The Magic Brush of Ma Liang (1955; Figure 2.2) and The Conceited General (1956; Figures 2.3 and 2.4). This conceptualization stresses national style because it was one of the "fundamental tasks for animators to present it as the essential of Chinese animation" (Zhang, 1981, pp. 174–183)."
  The book notes: "The Magic Brush of Ma Lian is a story of a boy named Ma Liang and a magic brush that could make everything he drew come to life. When news of Ma Liang's magic brush spread to the emperor, who was greedy to gain more fortune and plunder with this magic power, Ma Liang was arrested for possessing an enchanted power and also forced to paint a golden mountain for the emperor. The ending shows Ma Liang's vivid depiction of a marvelous golden mountain surrounded by the ocean, and the emperor drowns as a result of a tornado drawn by Ma Ling as his boat sails into the dream of fortune. The Magic Bush of Ma Liang was based on a well-known children's book written by Hong Xuntao in the 1950s. It represented an intriguing combination of the political discourse and the imagination of folklore magic in children's literature, particularly as the characters, animated by the stop-motion Chinese folk-handcrafted puppets achieved a contrast between the ideology and the animation aesthetic. The positive response from film audiences and authorities was soon echoed by another sophisticated piece of meishu film produced in Shanghai. The book has a photo with the caption "Figure 2.2. Still from The Magic Brush of Ma Liang. 1955. Directed by Jin Xi. Courtesy of Shanghai Animation Studio. Public domain image."
2. Macdonald, Sean (2016). Animation in China: History, Aesthetics, Media. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-93880-9. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "For Zhang Songlin, two of the first films that evidence national style in animation were Jiao'ao de jiangjun (The Arrogant General, 1956) and Shenbi (The Magic Brush 1956) (Wu 2009: 38; Zhang Songlin 982: 176). National style adds a historical aura to contemporary cultural production, even cultural production of the revolutionary period. For example, Zhang describes The Magic Brush as "a Chinese ancient folk tale" (yi ge Zhongguo gulao de minjian gushi) (1981: 176) although neither the film nor print versions seem to predate 1955. Zhang's reform-era language uses a transitional terminology that combines residual aspects of earlier minzu, national or ethnic style discourse from the revolutionary period (1949–1976): "[The film] concerns a strangely magical painting brush that expresses the thirst of the laboring masses for happiness and comfort and contains romantic touches of Chinese myth. In both content and form the film shows Chinese traditional artistic style. The figures of the protagonist Ma Liang and the government officials show the form and style of Chinese ancient characters combined with that specific aspect of puppet animation, a proper amount of exaggeration that gives [the film] an even greater artistic flavor. The scenery includes city wall and room interiors that expresses specific aspects of our nation's ancient decorative art, giving the whole film a brilliantly unified ethnic style." (Zhang Songlin 1982: 176). Thus, the "Chinese ancient folk tale" is enhanced by "Chinese traditional artistic style" (Zhongguo de chuantong yishu fengge). In short, The Magic Brush employs design elements that help to construct what could be called a Chinese effect."
  The book later notes, "Te Wei notes the same two films as Zhang Songlin, The Magic Brush and The Arrogant General, claiming that in both films "... design, character movement, and background are boldly nourished by our national theater traditions and plastic arts with added development and creativity; in addition, every effort has been taken to endow the characters' thoughts and feelings, customs, movements, and language with Chinese characteristic national style" (1960: 51).
  The book later notes: "The official program of the Venice International Festival lists two films from China, accurately indicating the place of origin and the directors, The Magic Brush and Why is the Crow Black?. Both films are listed under the Children's Exhibition portion of the festival."
  The book later notes: "At least according to the database at Historical Archive of the Foundation for the Venice Biennale, the film that did win an award was The Magic Brush, which remains an important puppet animation from this period and a good example of Jin Xi's able direction."
  The book notes in a footnote: "The writing and directing of the film are credited to Jin Xi (1919–1997) and the print version is attributed to children's literature author Hong Xuntao (1928–2001). See "Shenbi Ma Liang" (The Magic Brush of Ma Liang) in Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe (eds.) 1979: 381–389. The bibliographical note indicates the story was republished from a 1956 edition (389)."
3. Bobrowska, Olga (2019). "Seeking Truth in Facts: Historicizing Chinese Animation". In Bruckner, Franziska; Gilić, Nikica; Lang, Holger; Šuljič, Daniel; Turković, Hrvoje (eds.). Global Animation Theory: International Perspectives at Animafest Zagreb. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-5013-3713-0. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The historiography rather marginalizes the role of The Magic Brush (Shen bi/神笔, dir. Jin Xi/靳夕, 1955) in the process of establishing minzu style. This skilful puppet film tells a folk story of a boy who breaks class divisions and learns the art of painting, moreover the magical power of his brush helps him to conduct revolutionary acts such as overthrowing the feudal ruler and modernizing the peasants' work. Jin Xi, a student of Jiří Trnka and an animation theoretician, saturated the tale with symbols and meaningful artefacts from the past feudal culture, and dynamic dramaturgy, accelerating the film's revolutionary content, as well as common language (the dialogue even includes vulgarisms). Macdonald (2016: 38) and Wu (2009: 38), after the writings of Zhang Songlin (张松林; another notable SAFS artist and theoretician), acknowledge The Magic Brush as the first actual attempt of minzu style."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Magic Brush to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found Cunard, which could be used to expand this. Seems to meet GNG, obviously not a hoax. I'd be curious to learn if the nominator went beyond plain Google in their BEFORE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the nice job done by Cunard.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 1 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 Kelly Rowland discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kelly Rowland Edition[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS. Unremarkable release which did not receive significant coverage ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kelly Rowland discography. I could not find evidence of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources, but I do think this is a viable search term and a redirect would be far more beneficial than outright deletion as some readers may want to look up this EP (or single depending on how one classifies it). Aoba47 (talk) 12:32, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dahti Tsetso[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a deputy director of an organization, not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia notability criterion. As always, being deputy director of an organization is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, in the absence of passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the references here are a mixture of primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. her staff profile on the website of the organization, a PDF on the self-published personal website of a consultant, government press releases) with glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things. The only source that's actually about Dahti Tsetso in any non-trivial sense comes from a local radio station in a small city, and thus is not enough to singlehandedly get her over GNG all by itself.
For added bonus, this was created in draftspace and then got arbitrarily moved to mainspace by another editor (not the creator) who had only been around Wikipedia for about a month, and thus likely had little understanding of how Wikipedia's notability standards actually work.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be the subject of more than just one piece of coverage from a smalltown radio station. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Northwest Territories. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is already extremely well cited, but I added more citations, from the many that are available. Nominator just seems hung up on her title, as opposed to her accomplishments. Yuchitown (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

No, the article wasn't "well cited" — as I explained in my nomination statement, it was referenced entirely to the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with (which are not notability-supporting sources) and references which briefly quoted her as a giver of soundbite but not the subject under discussion (which are not notability-supporting sources), with only one piece from one small local community radio station that counted as real or notability-assisting media coverage at all — and the only new sources you added are still ones that just quote her as a giver of soundbite. People do not get over our notability standards by being a speaker in coverage of other things, they get over our notability standards by being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about, and there's still only one such source present here at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added two citations from scholarly journals. Seven previous citations come from well established media outlets (CBC, Globe and Mail, etc.). There are many more sources from which to draw. The fact that groups like Nature Conservancy Canada invite her to be a public speaker indicates she is making notable contributions to the field. I keep seeing efforts from Wikipedia to try to address gender imbalances and lack of coverage from Indigenous peoples, especially from remote regions. I cannot fathom why one would want to delete a perfectly fine BLP. Yuchitown (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Firstly, being from a well-established media outlet is not the only test that a source has to pass in order to help support notability — in addition to being from an established media outlet, a source also has to fall on the correct side of a "substantively about her" vs. "merely glancingly namechecking her existence in the process of being fundamentally about something else" test, which the CBC and Globe and Mail sources in the article do not. They merely quote her as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, which is not support for notability because she is not the subject that is being spoken about.

Secondly, the fact that groups like Nature Conservancy Canada invite her to be a public speaker can support notability if reliable source media outlets do third party journalism that treats her speech as a news story; it does not support notability if you have to source the speech to the Nature Conservancy's own self-published website about itself because independent third party analysis of the significance of the speech in media is lacking. It's the presence or absence of third-party media coverage about the speech, not the fact of the speech per se, that establishes the notability of a speech.

Thirdly, as important as it is for Wikipedia to improve our coverage of underrepresented groups, we do not do that by creating special lowered notability standards for women and people of colour, by which they're exempted from having to be the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'll explain why:

This source is the only reasonable one with regards to notability. It's been described as a local radio station, but with Dene being a nation, I think we should see it as a national radio station. https://cklbradio.com/2021/02/09/im-keen-and-im-eager-fort-simpson-local-becomes-new-deputy-director-for-indigenous-leadership-initiative/
There are lots of brief mentions in other sources, both news and academic. WP:BASIC does allow us to establish notability on the basis of combining lots of other sources, assuming there is at least one good source
I think we must be mindful that the Dene nation speak Northern Athabaskan languages and I doubt most editors here can speak that, so we're likely missing sources. We should be thoughtful about that and plenty wikipedia guidelines allow an assumption of notability when language is likely a factor in editors needing more time to find sources. It feels weird to quote WP:NSPORT here, but check out the FAQ to see what I'm talking about. CT55555 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I see plenty of good sources, from The Narwal to CBC, that have been added by Yuchitown. I don't see that it's so bad as to be deleted outright. It just needs more TLC. Has anyone contacted an expert, such as Edward Vajda? Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see only one questionable source, the rest look reliable based on the cultural and ethnic background of the subject and they offer her significant enough coverage to maintain the start-class status. I see no reason to delete this article on a notable Indigenous woman. Like others have mentioned here, the article needs some additional TLC but there is no doubt about her notability or her contributions to her First Nation. No need to post links to guidelines and policies as most have already been posted. --ARose Wolf 19:23, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Stark[edit]

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

Biography of an educator not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for educators. The attempted notability claim here, that she was the first black school teacher to work in one specific local region, is not an "inherently" notable one at all -- if she'd been the first black school teacher anywhere in all of Canadian history, then there might be grounds for an article, but "first member of a minority group to do a not inherently notable thing in one specific local area" is not a Wikipedia inclusion freebie.
But she hasn't been shown to get over WP:GNG for it, either, as the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as Find-a-Grave and the self-published websites of non-media organizations in her own local area -- and even the one source that looks acceptable on first glance, because it comes from a real newspaper, is still merely an excerpt of a book written by one of the subject's own relatives rather than genuinely independent third-party coverage. And while I was able to find one source about her that is reliable and independent enough to actually count for something toward GNG, one source isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself if all of the other sourcing is primary.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on properly reliable sources, and we do not waive GNG just because the subject happens to be a member of an underrepresented minority group. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and British Columbia. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Our notability criteria for educators are aimed at modern university professors; for historical schoolteachers such as the subject the correct criterion is WP:GNG. I do not see why the sources by the BC Black History Awareness society should be considered primary. To me they look secondary, reliable, and in-depth. Primary would be stuff like wedding announcements and obituaries in local newspapers, or the newspaper-published family history that these sources refer to as their source. But despite having two of these secondary sources, they are both from the same organization so they count as only one, and we need multiple sources. Are there other sources, independent of these, which we could use towards GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, historical societies are not media, and thus are not notability-supporting sources. Secondly, and even more importantly, even if we ignored that and accepted historical societies as reliable sources anyway, local historical societies would still not represent a strong reason why "first X to do a not inherently notable thing in one particular local area" should attain any wider or more nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think being "media" is some kind of imprimatur of quality? And where do you see any qualification about locality in WP:GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she meets the general notability criteria on the basis of the following:

Chapter 10 of the following book is exclusive about her: Healey, H. (2020). On Their Own Terms: True Stories of Trailblazing Women of Vancouver Island. Australia: Heritage House.
Significant coverage here: https://bcblackhistory.ca/emma-stark/
Significant coverage here: https://www.communitystories.ca/v2/bc-black-pioneers_les-pionniers-noirs-de-la-cb/story/first-black-teacher-on-vancouver-island-emma-stark/
I wasn't able to see it all or see the page numbers, but it is clear from what I can see on Google books that the following has more than trivial mentions of her: Kilian, C. (2020). Go Do Some Great Thing: The Black Pioneers of British Columbia. Canada: Harbour Publishing Company Limited.

I do not agree that 2 & 3 above are primary sources. CT55555 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, historical societies are not media, and thus are not notability-supporting sources. Secondly, and even more importantly, even if we ignored that and accepted historical societies as reliable sources anyway, local historical societies would still not represent a strong reason why "first X to do a not inherently notable thing in one particular local area" should attain any wider or more nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have written the exact same reply to me and User:David Eppstein and I am not sure if that was intentional or not, because my argument also included a book chapter and that seemed like the most important part of what I was saying.

Nonetheless, I am surprised that you are saying (if I understand correctly) that the BC Black History Awareness Society is not good for reliability or notability. Is that just your opinion, or is there a consensus that has been reached, or a guideline you can point to? It's an organization that has a ~40 year history with a specific focus on cataloguing the role of Black people in BC. Regarding it being "local" I know you know this, but for the benefit of all editors, BC = British Columbia a Canadian province with a population and area comparable to a medium sized country. CT55555 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added sources and expanded the article, including with several books, and it appears WP:BASIC notability is supported. I have concerns about the Healey (2020) source due to a substantial error (reprinted in a newspaper excerpt), i.e. "In 1895, when Emma was 11 years old, tragedy struck the Stark family." (Stark was born in 1856/1857 and died in 1890). It also has other conflicts with the mostly-primary "History of the Stark Family" series in the Further reading section. However, there are other sources that provide sustained coverage and appear to be independent and reliable. Beccaynr (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Expanded coverage now shows a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what the article was like when it was nominated but it seems an obvious keep now, with multiple reliable independent sources meeting GNG. I disagree that local historical society material should be disregarded. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY in accord with David Eppstein. (Hi, haven't seen you in years!) Bearian (talk) 19:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) --lettherebedarklight – 晚安 (おやすみなさい)。 05:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janhit Mein Jaari[edit]

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

Does not comply with WP:NFF whcih says "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Certainly WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I assume the source listed may be not enough but the topic is required and It's based on the subject "Condom" so the coverage is already present, releasing by nexy friday crafted as drama with slice of comedy. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 02:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This movie is going to release on 10 June 2022. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tentatively, since it will open in a week. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the crew testing positive for Covid made the film into the news cycle. I'd say that is at least one notable event in the production process. Or at least I think it is. In the past I've also nominated films that are due for a release in a week or a couple, and editors (including myself in some) opined to [tentatively] keep as the release is nearby, which would generate reviews for an WP:NFO. But then again this is speculative and a future event and we aren't doing a WP:CRYSTAL. (A sidenote, we have a WP:ICTF/F where we're trying to track future films and see if they are to be sent to the abyss) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick Google search and got to see some news article from reliable sources like The Indian Express. One article says that the film has started shooting, another one is saying that the film has completed shooting, another one is saying the film has announced their release date and that is 10 June 2022, another article is about the trailer review. And all the article are from WP:RS(The India Express). So according to WP:NFILM the subject is meeting the criteria and it should stay on wikipedia. Trakinwiki (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion we should retain the article and see how it goes post release. The article has 18,362 views since its creation. Which is reasonable.
Comment: The film is about social message and is complying WP:NFILM. Rickyurs (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not appear common sense to me to delete a movie’s article short of its release date. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 07:31, 5 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank O'Leary[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a county treasurer, not properly sourced as having a genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. County treasurer is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself -- it's one where the notability test would require a strong case to be made that he's markedly more notable than most other county treasurers, such as by having much wider nationalizing coverage than the norm.
But this is referenced entirely to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (e.g. content self-published by the county or other organizations he was directly affiliated with) and purely run of the mill local coverage in his own county's community hyperlocal media, in no way demonstrating a reason why he should be seen as more notable than the norm for this level of office. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources providing WP:SIGCOV seem to exist; barely any WP:LOCAL sources exist, which is surprising considering he served for 30 years and testified before Congress several times. Fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local level politician who has not recieved coverage in a way to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this appears to be a disagreement of opinion, but it appears that he has gotten lots of coverage over the years, especially for his innovation, 37 years ago, of allowing taxpayers to pay their bills by credit card. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 2 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) 03:50, 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. ✗plicit 00:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hernandez[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a lawyer and unsuccessful political candidate, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for lawyers or politicians. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for it, while candidates must demonstrate either (a) that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of their candidacy, or (b) that their candidacy has a strong claim to being much more special than other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring importance.
But the only other potential notability claim here is that he was a policy analyst for the White House Domestic Policy Council, which is not an "inherently" notable role in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work in that role.
But this cites no references that are covering him in the policy analyst context at all, and instead is cited entirely to a mixture of primary sources that are not support for notability at all (his own campaign website, his own staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer), and purely run of the mill local coverage of the election he ran and lost in, which is not the kind of coverage it takes to establish the permanent notability of an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Virginia. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable defeated candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (a) per the above discussion, (b) per my own standards for lawyers, and (c) his verifiably lack of media presence (for example, he has 1,318 followers on Titter, while I have almost 3 times as many). Bearian (talk) 19:18, 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 keep. The consensus is that the sourcing, especially from Mother Jones Magazine passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Almanza[edit]

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

Article about an activist and unsuccessful political candidate, not properly sourcing any strong claim to passing our notability standards for activists or politicians. As always, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates per se, and that's especially true when they were only candidates for a city council -- even the incumbent councillor she ran against doesn't qualify for an article on that basis in and of itself, and the fact that she was running against her brother, while amusing, isn't significant enough to make her candidacy more special than other people's candidacies.
But this is referenced principally to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (i.e. her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with), and doesn't show nearly enough reliable source coverage in real media to make her encyclopedically notable for any of this.
Also, the page was created in draftspace and then immediately moved to mainspace by its own creator without a proper WP:AFC review.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Environment, and Texas. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond her brief political adventure (which isn't notable), nothing is even close to notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep All the reasons are about her environmental work, not her brief political efforts.

There is a 1998 article about her on page 20 of Mother Jones Magazine, Nov-Dec 1998 written by Jessica Shattuck. It has a brief quote from Almanza at the end, but it's independent enough and significant
She mentioned here, indeed briefly, but also notes that she was appointed to the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council. And if you search her name and that council you'll see that was noted by media many times https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-groups-commemorating-cesar-chavez-day-activism-mobilization-rcna21439 (another example here https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/whispers/almanza-appointed-to-federal-environmental-panel/)
She is mentioned briefly only and it includes a quote on page 68 of The Worlds of American Intellectual History. (2017). United States: Oxford University Press.
She is the founder of a serious NGO
She is quoted frequently in a way that establishes her in my mind as an expert
She features already in Executive Office appointments by Joe Biden and Brown Berets (Austin)

Overall none of this is enough for me to say she confidently passes, but I think it adds up enough for me to !vote keep CT55555 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Mother Jones piece is already in the article, and is not a new data point that wasn't already taken into account. It takes a lot more than just one of those to get a person over GNG.
(2+3) Being "mentioned briefly" in sources that aren't about her in any meaningful way does not assist in establishing notability.
(4) Founding an NGO is not a notability freebie in the absence of GNG-worthy coverage about her work in that role.
(5) Being "quoted" in sources about other things does not assist in establishing notability — a person does not get over GNG on sources where she's the speaker about other things, she gets over GNG on sources where she's the subject being spoken or written about by other people.
(6) A person's name being present in other articles is not in and of itself a notability freebie that exempts her from actually having to pass GNG on the sourcing; neither the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council nor the Brown Berets are organizations where mere membership hands someone an automatic "get out of GNG free" card. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did say borderline... There's plenty more about her in Google books. For example:

Civil Rights in Black and Brown: Histories of Resistance and Struggle in Texas. (2021). United States: University of Texas Press. mentions her name 10 times, and talks about her upbringing (location, poverty, local epidemiology). It appears (I can't see it all via Google Books) reliant on interviews.

I don't have it to hand, but I have seen a few times editors refer to multiple brief mentions adding up to general notability. And so please don't take my comments to mean I'm advocating for some sort of exception to GNG.

I don't think non notable people show up so frequently in google books and show up so frequently in google news and I also note the interest from authors and journalists has spanned decades. CT55555 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done a bit of work on the article and in doing so found she passes GNG. The Mother Jones piece is actually all about her, she has an entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in Contemporary Politics, Law, and Social Movements and I added a source about her election to the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Mujinga (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mujinga--evrik ^(talk) 02:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It's much clearer now that she passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete this page 68.203.5.123 (talk) 00:02, 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. ✗plicit 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Yan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial (match reports, with the topic not the primary topic) and a listing on a database. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:21, 29 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) 14:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as article creator. Was created in good faith as a member of a non-FIFA team who had played in an official FIFA / OFC tournament and won fulfilled WP:NFOOTY. However, recent changes put much clearer emphasis on GNG and rightly so and as I lack the ability to review offline i-Kiribati sources, there are no grounds to keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this footballer does not meet GNG. Strongly oppose redirecting as 'Joseph Yan' is a relatively common name and redirecting may cause more confusion than good. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kimble Ainslie[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a pollster, political consultant and former leader of an unregistered fringe political party. To be fair, this was created at a time when "leader of a political party, regardless of its success or failure in politics" was accepted as the sort of "inherent" notability claim that required an article to be kept even if there were referencing problems -- but that's long since been deprecated, and leaders of minor or fringe parties are now accepted as notable only if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on their sourceability.
But even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google, I didn't find any significant coverage about him -- I'm finding raw tables of election results from when he ran for political office in 1995, glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite, and/or op-ed pieces where he's the bylined author, and can find virtually no third-party coverage which has him as its subject apart from one very short article about his 2019 book, which isn't enough all by itself.
Again, this was a good faith creation under the wikirules that applied as of 2005, but he doesn't pass WP:GNG for the purposes of meeting the wikirules that apply in 2022. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in 2005 I don't think this was much for notability on wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this biographical article has lasted on Wikipedia for over 17 years with no sources is an indictment of how bad things are on Wikipedia. I just hope that we do not have any articles hit 20 years with no sources, I have already seen multiple ones that exceeded 19 years with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uncited WP:BLP; also violates WP:NOTRESUME and WP:TNT. What a wreck and a shame on us. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amazing it lasted so long. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:59, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President (video game)[edit]

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

The article has only been sourced to databases since its creation in January and lots remains unsourced. One sources says that there have been four magazine reviews, but I'm not sure whether that information is reliable and whether any of these reviews were substantial. I have not been able to locate coverage in an online search. I would propose to draftify until better sourcing is produced, but the article is over 90 days old and it therefore needs a consensus decision. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two print review archives added to talk page refideas. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Four more print review archives added to the talk page refideas. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NEXIST and WP:RUSHDELETE. The game is obviously notable and despite it being merely a stub, that is not grounds for removing it or forcing people to work on it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page was sourced in a way that raised doubts over the game's notability. When a page in the mainspace has such sourcing problems, I don't see the problem with forcing action. I was hoping that an AfD would either yield sources that I didn't find (which has happened) or determine that the subject was non-notable. I also do not understand why RUSHDELETE would apply here since I was proposing to draftify. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying is essentially soft deletion if nobody bothers to work on it in the ensuing time, and the draft is removed for inactivity. Generally, I only really support it if the article is completely unsourced. Even if it's a viable stub there is no reason to do so, as you are just kicking the can down the road to other editors who are busy making their own articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the draftificaiton: it can amount to a soft deletion if the the editor isn't around or doesn't improve the draft. Regardless, I apologise for taking up people's time, but decisions have to be taken when patrolling new pages and I was on the fence with this one. I couldn't move the page to draft, but I couldn't approve the page either without evidence of better sourcing. I thought bringing it to AfD would be the most consensus oriented/potentially constructive way forward. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Modussiccandi 2 of these sources were found via Mobygames (Itself unreliable, but a good way to find reviews that are). The other 4 were found through one of the sources already in the article that listed them all. -- ferret (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In light of the new sources surfaced, which meet GNG by my standards. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While I found six print publications about the game, several of them are very short 2-3 paragraph snap reviews. It's unlikely much more sourcing exists than this. I think it just barely gets by. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources found. A few short reviews is enough, but hopefully more sources can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:33, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nabuaka Itimaroroa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources trivial and/or a database listing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:03, 29 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) 14:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need more than stats databases like RSSSF and NFT to have an article. Very little else appears to exist Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milt Albright[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really do not see how the sources here add up to being indepdent at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All primary sources except for one, which doesn't look like that good of a source, therefore not passing WP:GNG. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:34, 31 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) 14:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmerson Brooks-Meade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first thought here was that this is an international player so he must be notable. Then I saw the team was Anguilla national football team of BOT Anguilla with population 14,731 and that he appeared in two qualifying games against El Salvador that were lost 16-0 overall. His club career is at Leighton Town F.C. of the Spartan South Midlands Football League which is quite low on the English football system. Most importantly, there is simply a lack of sources here covering Brooks-Meade, so he does not meet the GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: - full international caps aren't evidence of notability.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NFOOTBALL has been phased out and is not relevant anymore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sportsfan 1234: - pretty sure I didn't mention WP:NFOOTBALL. I was just pointing out that having played international football is clearly at least a claim to notability, so GS may wish to use different wording than the boilerplate "no evidence of notability" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I for one think that international caps are a strong sign of notability. Most international players will have coverage. The Anguilla team, itself a BOT and not a state, representing a BOT of 14k people is probably one of the few exceptions to this.--Mvqr (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have tried to find reliable sources but to no avail. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to clarify - there are reliable sources about this guy, there just aren't any significant sources. A big difference. Giant Snowman 19:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. That is, of course, what I meant. Excuse my slip. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:45, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 02:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Loucks[edit]

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

Biography of a politician and journalist, whose only stated claim of notability is having been a losing candidate in an election. As always, candidates don't get articles just for being candidates per se, but this makes no other strong claim of notability -- newspaper editors aren't "inherently" notable just for being newspaper editors, and writers of books aren't "inherently" notable just because their books exist, either -- and it's referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with no evidence shown of any references that are actually about him in any non-trivial way. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The correct title would be "Henry L. Loucks", as that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Loucks appears to have been a major figure both in early South Dakota politics and in national US politics as the head of the Farmers' Alliance. There are literary sources that provide WP:SIGCOV, namely [17] and [18]; [19] is also a good one. Several other literary sources exist just on GBooks. While currently in poor shape, this can be a very good article if given some love. Curbon7 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable since he has an entry in the American National Biographical Dictionary Piecesofuk (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has sources that make support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Aside from the standard media coverage. IrishOsita (talk) 03:25, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Manzoor[edit]

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

This subject is not enough notable as This article has not sufficient sources to stand alone article AlexandruAAlu (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlexandruAAlu (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG. Some state and local success doesn't show notability. Appeared in only 1 international level event (a G1 in India) where he didn't have any success. For reference purposes, the world championships are level G20. Sandals2 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable enough --Alkashmiri2022www (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) — Alkashmiri2022www (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: This article passes WP:GNG having significant and independent coverages. He won three national level tournament with Gold, Bronze and Silver respectively. And 4-5 citations including citation 1, 2, 4, 13 and 14 which I observed as good sources. I believe this should be kept. Hanifsid (talk) Hanifsid (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC) — Hanifsid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: The coverage is not small. This subject has been covered since 2016 by a number of sources. I believe that this should be on Wikipedia. There are a number of good sources which thoroughly cover the subject, including the Best Male Athlete award in the Tokey Memorial Open National Taekwondo Championship. Thanks and Regards. - ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

Please show which sources show significant independent coverage. The Tokey Memorial Open is not a major event and I don't understand how someone who didn't even win his division could be the best male athlete at the tournament.Sandals2 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there are number of independent sources and also good sources including this, this, this and this. There are more coverages you can check there which are mostly reliable and passes WP:GNG and also satisfy an essay WP:THREE.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)

The articles focus are all at least partially interviews and focus on his success in junior tournaments, most at state or local level. Junior events don't show notability even at the international level. Young athletes that want to compete in the Olympics for their country are a dime a dozen and he has no competitive results as an adult that show he's close--and these articles were years before the last Olympics. I also question the independence of the articles when multiple articles are almost identical. For example, one starts "He has won 15 gold medals in the past 5 years, but professional support is proving to be a stumbling block for this 18-year-old taekwondo player from North Kashmir's Baramulla district, who aspires to represent the country at the Olympics" and another one starts by giving his name, saying he's from Baramulla and that "He has won 15 gold medals in the past 5 years but the lack of professional support is proving to be a stumbling block for this player, who aspires to represent the country at the Olympics." Those articles have different authors and appear in different publications, but read more like press releases than independent journalism. Sandals2 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets general notability guidelines. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm going to go into Bastard Helper From Hell mode here (as always, top table of User:Jéské Couriano/Decode):

https://thechenabtimes.com/2016/09/12/gold-medalist-in-taekwondo-danish-manzoor-is-stepping-upwards-towards-his-goals/ is borderline. The article seems more like a cirriculum vitae in journalistic form and other than his list of accomplishments it doesn't say much about him.
https://www.thekashmirmonitor.net/kashmiri-youngster-striving-to-fulfill-olympic-dream/ seems fine.
https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/after-shining-on-national-level-taekwondo-player-from-j-k-aims-for-olympics20200914154118/ , https://www.indiablooms.com/sports-details/SN/12068/kashmir-taekwondo-player-dreams-to-represent-nation-in-olympics.html and https://www.nepalnational.com/news/266395347/taekwondo-player-from-j-k-aims-for-olympics (they're all the exact same source) is useless for notability (connexion to subject). A supermajority of the article is direct quotes from him; this seems like an interview in prose.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/valley-youngster-struggles-to-fulfil-olympic-dream-179845 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Again, this seems to be an interview in prose.
https://kashmirlife.net/for-its-love-issue-50-vol-07-98143/amp/ is 404-compliant.
https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/state-taekwondo-team-leaves-for-jr-nationals/ is useless for notability (too sparse). As mentioned above, junior competitions don't count for notability in any sports-related SNG, so a mere mention in a list of winners does the article no favours.
I cannot assess https://news.statetimes.in/state-taekwondo-team-wins-15-medals-national-championship/ (Technical barrier). The website seems to be down.
https://kashmirscroll.com/2021/07/06/meet-danish-manzoor-an-international-taekwondo-player-from-baramulla/ is 404-compliant.
We can't use http://www.kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=53071 (unknown provenance). Role byline; who actually wrote this?
We can't use https://www.jksportstime.com/dr-farooq-abdullah-flagged-off-taekwondo-team/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could this would be useless for notability (too sparse).
We can't use https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/danish-awarded-best-athlete-of-taekwondo-cship/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/newsdetail/index/11/21726/taekwondo-champion-danish-manzoor-dreams-to-win-a-gold-for-india- seems fine.

In summary, what few good sources there are get choked out by the crush of poor sources, and a couple of the sources cited are dead. The sourcing is very thin. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that he fails to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:NSPORT, so that leaves us to assess if WP:GNG is met. Thank you to Jéské Couriano for his thorough job of evaluating sources. His analysis is similar to my own and I also saw that the sources he thought were okay were the sources that Sandals2 pointed out were virtually the same article. The articles talking about his victories were just reporting results of junior tournaments which don't show notability as a martial artist or significant coverage. I also note that those voting to keep the articles were either new editors and/or didn't specifically state which articles they believed showed WP notability or sufficient coverage. I don't believe that WP:GNG is satisfied so I find no WP notability criteria that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It is likely a notable organisation but it needs to be stated. from the nom solidified this, but sourcing and a Hebrew search term had already provided grounds to keep. Some of the !votes do not add up, for example: No web site. No Google results. The sources are mostly Hebrew news clippings. with a delete vote, but the consensus is there is enough on which to have an article. Star Mississippi 15:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Security College[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. 1 refs out the 6 refs is blog which is the IDF blog, 1 is a profile and 3 are non-RS, ref 3,4,5. The blog ref is official IDF blog which the creator states is valid. I don't think it is. The last ref has no details on it. Looking for draftify or delete. scope_creep^Talk 12:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, Schools, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major Israeli military college for high-rank officers. I wrote a minimal stub, merely to establish notability. THe nomination is without merit on all counts.
1. The nominator did not exercise due diligence, and probably could not, because I doubt they read Hebrew. If they could, they would easily find tens of articles because several times the college came under heavy criticism. And of course, they are independent, with significant coverage. This fact is mentioned in the article, without much detail.
2. Nom's Non-RS 3,4,5 judgment is due to lack of common sense and due diligence: I sloppily provided wikilink Maariv (a prayer service) instead of Maariv (newspaper) (a major newspaper), and the nom probably didnt bother to click the extlinks
3. official IDF blog which the creator states is valid Red herring. It is not creator states it is valid: it is our guideline WP:SELFSOURCE. Yes a blog owned by article subject is WP:RS for neutral factual info about subject. Here the official blog was used to source the date of the establishment of the college.
4. You cannot on a whim draftify or delete an article with multiple backlinks. At the very minimum you search for a valid merge/redirect target. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable, meets both the standards of the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. This nomination fails both WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As usual with your Afd entry, no discussion of the references and a straight-up ideological keep vote that ignores policy as usual. I'd rather wait until somebody who knows what they are talking about attends and is willing to look at the references. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I am talking about. The nomination is focused on references instead of sources, where the focus should be per WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. Nominations such as these waste precious time for the WP community. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The blog entry is RS for neutral factual info, but not for establishing notability Jacona (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need for further research I clicked on the google books search and was confronted with a host of books. Most of these included the article subject in the bibliography, or referred to an event that happened at the college; as the list was large I have not had time to fully process it. It bears further research. Jacona (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very obviously notable institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No web site. No Google results. The sources are mostly Hebrew news clippings. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you search for "המכללה לביטחון לאומי" you will see many sources. Every senior Israeli officer goes through this college since the 60s-70s, there's lots of sources about it.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, you have provided a term to search on. I'll go through the references today. We'll do the translations and see if they independent, significant and reliable. As usual it is the pile on, if its Jewish article or an an Isreali article, with litle connection to the quality of the article or the quality of the references. We see if it has coverage. It is likely a notable organisation but it needs to be stated. scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 6 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 Foghorn Leghorn. Star Mississippi 02:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Super Stars' Foghorn Leghorn & Friends: Barnyard Bigmouth[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable DVD release. SL93 (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. SL93 (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foghorn Leghorn. In theory, this can be searchable. Fails WP:GNG to retain a stand-alone entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

René Campero[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Does not appear to have had any significant roles in any notable productions. Ploni (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Ploni (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behrooz Astaneh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, at least per English sources. I am unable to do substantial WP:BEFORE in Farsi, however. The previous discussion reached no consensus because Astaneh was a co-editor on a journal of some importance, according to some previous editors opposed to deletion. The article as it stands is pure puffery and there is zero material in English to create anything beyond a one- or two-sentence stub, so I think this is worth revisiting.WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Iran. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is currently located in Canada, so you'd expect some WP:GNG or WP:PROF in the English language, but I find none. Looking at his LinkedIn profile, I see nothing there that would count towards notability. Article states he is at McMaster, but search of Faculty/Staff directory doesn't find him. https://directories.mcmaster.ca/faculty-staff/ — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A ton of hits in GScohlar, but the name seems common enough that I'm unsure if they're all about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 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 no consensus whether sourcing is sufficient, but nor is there consensus to delete. Star Mississippi 02:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mk Ultra[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for lacking notability since 2011. Mere association with John Vanderslice does not establish notability. Schierbecker (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and thank you Schierbecker for giving attention to taking out old trash. BD2412 T 05:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently available online sources: The existing SF Weekly article, Trouserpress, allmusic, allmusic. Not too bad for a 90s band. At the very least merge to John Vanderslice. No need for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouserpress article is a profile of Vanderslice that only talks about MK Ultra incidentally. Schierbecker (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per The SF article, two AllMusic reviews and the Trouserpress piece has three paragraphs about the band so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:48, 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 redirect to Electric Light Orchestra discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ELO EP[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and moreover fails WP:NSONGS. Although charting is indicative of notability, there is very little information about the release as a body of word (the individual tracks all have their own pages). At this point its a stub and probably won't grow. Suggest that inclusion at the discography is significant enough. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electric Light Orchestra discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect this probably did get some coverage and reviews as a separate EP at the time, and there may be possibilities to improve the article in the future – I remember hearing as a kid when this came out that this was a "sampler" EP. But I don't object to a redirect to discography for now, as I have no plans to look for that information. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 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 speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deji Sotona[edit]

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

The player has yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league. Beatpoet (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, see the Athletic piece. Giant Snowman 11:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG with articles such as these [20][21][22]. The nominator should note that not playing in a fully professional league is not and has never been grounds for deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with sources indicated.--Mvqr (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG, which is why I created the article. Appearing in a pro league means nothing, and GNG supersedes everything anyway. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Alvaldi and the others Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage clearly meets WP:GNG. Playing in an WP:FPL is irrelevant, as GNG is most important (and WP:NFOOTY, which referred to FPL, was depreciated anyway). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:04, 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 keep. ✗plicit 10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Mohiuddin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Spam biography. Not for wikipedia. Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Atheism and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence this is a “spam biography”. Numerous reliable sourcing over a decade. Clearly meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shoaib Ahsan II (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the abundance of independent coverage. I suspect the rather puzzling AfD nomination is motivated by personal or political animus. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Thriley and MasqueDesRonces. The nomination does not even have any proper support, unlike the 1st nomination that did at least refer to GNG. This article has a long history of being attacked by vandals (IP addresses and SPAs) who apparently or clearly do not like the subject of the article. The fact that User:Shoaib Ahsan II is an SPA created to "vote" 'Delete' without argument also says a lot. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepThere is plenty to say about the nominator's motivations but that might slide into personal attacks so I shall refrain. This is a clear case of someone not liking the article's subject for personal reasons and nominating it on that basis. On what evidence is the nom calling this a spam bio? The SPA supporting deletion does not give us a reason and I think a Socking investigation is needed. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see a strong argument for why this article should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3, as No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. It is self-evidently not spam, so the author’s rationale is wholly erroneous on its face. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:22, 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 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 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Vitaliano D. Agan Coliseum[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE shows zero reliable source about this place on google search. BloatedBun (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found on News, News Archives and plain Google Search. It seems to be a sports and political venue but that's about it according to my search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:20, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 02:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Ellison[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable video game critic. --Viennese Waltz 07:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's not only a critic, but a notable game developer who worked as a narrative consultant on Dishonored 2 and senior narrative designer on Bloodlines 2. She also released books and a series of comics, which were reviewed by independent sources. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Merko (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those sources are reliable, though? --Viennese Waltz 19:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia: ComicWatch is cited: [1], [2]. Can't say anything about other review sources. PC Gamer and Rock Paper Shotgun are known, reliable sources. She is also covered on Daily Record (Scotland) about her book (and more) here. Merko (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NPERSON, significant mentions in reliable sources at Paste Magazine (part of it is an interview but there's also a substantial amount of independent commentary), and Wired Magazine. Also got a smaller mention in the New York Times, and that's in addition to the other stuff mentioned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good number of reliable sources, and has been involved in the creation of several notable works. In addition to what others have mentioned, a cursory search finds this figure briefly mentioned in a number of academic dissertations regarding interactive fiction. Unsure if that factors into the notability equation, but it's something. --Mbrickn (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For several reasons:
- According to the talk page, the overwhelming majority of the article was written by someone with a conflict of interest.
- Several claims are original research: for instance the statement saying she was a regular contributor to three publications has three citations, all of which are just a single article that she wrote (rather than being things about Cara Ellison, they are things that Cara wrote about).
- The only important thing I see on the page is "senior narrative designer" for Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 2, but she later left it so I'm not even sure if that's notable. Everything else seems like really unimportant, transient things that read like yesterday's recentism (was a speaker at a conference, was a QA tester, etc). -Thunderforge (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thunderforge. --Viennese Waltz 07:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You nominated the article for AfD, is it necessary to write "delete" in a separate bullet point again? Merko (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was, but it sounds like I was wrong. Should I delete the bullet point? --Viennese Waltz 08:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read through WP:AFD and this subsection states "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this", so I suggest you ~~strike through~~ your comment. Merko (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does not lose its notability because of a potential conflict of interest. Sourcing supports existence as an article here. IrishOsita (talk) 02:09, 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 speedy delete. Already deleted via speedy deletion CSD G11. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HomeSun Ltd[edit]

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

Besides the fact that the whole article is written in (often borderline impenetrable) ad-copy prose, there are no references whatsoever attesting to the notability of the company (all the mentions in newspapers appear to be tangential), and searching for its name on Google News, Google Books, etc., yields no usable results. I don't think you can argue that the company has any sort of inherent notability and it generally fails WP:CORP pretty soundly. MasqueDesRonces (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per MasqueDesRonces, also, the article also conflicts with what Wikipedia is not, especially regarding advertising and promotion. HenryTemplo (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale at WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Kill it with TNT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:03, 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. ✗plicit 10:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Charlton (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Since the previous no consensus result, WP:SPORTCRIT #5 has been added to WP:NSPORT, and WP:FOOTY has been removed, removing all justification to keep the article.

One source has been added since that discussion, but it is also not WP:SIGCOV - the full quote is Bradford A.F.C. have now signed the Derry City left full-back John Browell Charlton. Before going to Derry in 1933, Charlton had 2 1/2 years’ service with Liverpool. Charlton is 25 years of age and stands 5ft. 8 1/2ins. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per previous AFD(s). GiantSnowman 10:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Your previous !votes were based on WP:NFOOTBALL, which is no longer part of WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No, they were on the basis that sources exist offline due to the level this player played at. Giant Snowman 11:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. I have a book about Bradford City somewhere, will dig it out when I can and expand (moved house, it's in a box somewhere).
  
  But WP:MUSTBESOURCES is also not a suitable argument; we cannot keep an article because editors believe sources exist, those editors need to verify that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am still going with keep, MUSTBESOURCES is a valid argument in my opinion for keeping an article. His Bradford City career isn't noted in the article and it's hard to believe there wouldn't be sources for that. There is a reason why he was signed by Liverpool from Bradford, there are lots of questions about the player which isn't in the article. WP:OFFLINESOURCES is my best bet and still the reason why I lean towards keep. Govvy (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I searched through both Newspapers.com and the British Newspaper Archive but was unable to come up with anything of substance. No indications that the subject gained any notability through his football career. Alvaldi (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In particular, this fails WP:SPORTCRIT #5 which requires that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Speculation that offline sources are likely to exist is insufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 12:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the significant coverage that is needed to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. No clear proof the subject is passing WP:GNG, no evidence the subject might have acquired media coverage back to his days. --Angelo (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT. As above, a search of BNA and Newspapers.com has already been done. If nothing of note was found there then I see no reason to keep this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails MUSTBESOURCES. Avilich (talk) 16:25, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Preville[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pierre Preville (2nd nomination)

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

Does not meet any of the nine criteria outlined in WP:NMOTORSPORT; the only race win mentioned in the article was in a "pay-to-play" amateur race series organized by his employer. Previous speedy deletion nomination appears to have been rejected by someone who didn't realize that all of the racing series he competed in were low-level series. Stephen Hui (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and France. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE search does not even seem to bring up WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP from independent reliable sources, although a lot of false positives relating to apparently unrelated individuals seemed to come up. Does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NMOTORSPORT. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with both Stephen Hui and HumanBodyPiloter's assessment. Judging from article history, might be a COI as well. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Visibly self-created article of an amateur driver who doesn't come anywhere close to meeting WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:SIGCOV. All his participations in significant championships turn out to just be test sessions, and his actual competitive results are difficult to even verify. MSport1005 (talk) 23:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teal independents[edit]

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

"Teal independents" is a fairly vague and undefined term, and appears to be mainly used to refer to candidates that have been endorsed by the Climate 200 group. I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to group in these candidates together simply because they're not affiliated with a political party, and given the main through-line appears to be that they're endorsed by Climate 200, I think this article would be better off as a redirect to that one. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are major issues with the article, such as the conflating of Climate 200, the independents and the community groups that supported them. Each of the successful candidates will have a page, as does the 'Voices' movements that backed their candidacy. This is not a political party, as such I think this article should be incorporated into the Voices page.Playlet (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are issues with the article, but they can be worked through. This is extremely notable judging by the number of page views and the amount of media coverage this term is receiving. There are many sources talking about "teal independents", even if the candidates don't use the term themselves. That they receive funding from climate 200 is just one of many things linking these people together. Steelkamp (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Steelkamp Silent Billy (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are resolvable issues with the article. As long as there is clarity that this is a group of independents who are not a party, it should be fine. What makes the "Teal Independents" notable enough to be a page is that they are a recognised and distinctly characterisable political phenomenon in Australia. An example; we have a page for "Liberalism", which contains mentions of different figures in that movement; yet we all know that those figures are not from the same party and do not hold the same views. Likewise, we should keep the page about the Teals, while recognising that they are distinct and have some differences and are not in the same political party. StrongPencil (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep, the media have made it an established term. If you want to try to change the term, ok fine, but these candidates made history in the 2022 election & as such I think it's appropriate wiki covers it & "teal independents" seems like the most appropriate term suggested to date & the one people will search to find the info in this page. I'm commenting because I was shocked to see talk of deletion of an important historical event! That reads to me as corrupt censorship of wiki by those who like the status quo of 2 party domination (probably not confined just to Australia but those scared it will spread to their country too if people are armed with knowledge of this event) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.51.171 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's value in keeping the content. However, if it overlaps with the Climate 200 page, then it might be worth redirecting to that page?-CackleGrackle (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it would be worth merging information about the characteristics of teal independents into the Climate 200 article, such as some of their shared characteristics and reasons attributed for their success. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they are still a seperate entity and do not take directions from Climate 200. However more sourcing for that is necessary. This is a tough article to write considering the editorial standards required; that does not mean the article should not exist. StrongPencil (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources discuss this grouping of candidates and politicians, thus meeting the WP:GNG. While they have sprung from Climate 200 and Voices groups, I believe they meet WP:PAGEDECIDE criteria for having an article discussing them as the "nascent political movement" (Graeme Orr's words) that they are. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable topic, sources in their thousands. That said, we should absolutely resist the attempts by a couple of users to try to spin the Teal independent movement like it's a political party, or that it makes their elected MPs not actually independent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my main concern -- I worry that trying to define such a vague term or movement which associated MPs don't really identify with might result in readers percieving some sort of connection between the independents where there is none. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the identification of this group as "Teal independents" has clearly been discussed at great length by the media, potential POV-pushing is not a reason to delete the article, but instead a reason to clean it up. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the consensus here, the term is widely used in the media (WP:GNG) for this group of candidates. It may well be a focus of some edit wars as the parliament proceeds, but that's not a reason to delete the page. Newystats (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Playlet makes a good point about the similarities between the Teal Independent movement and the Voices for movements in other part of Australia. I don't think a merge is the best course of action, seeing as there is a separate article for Voices for Indi (would we have this merged and redirected to that article as well?). I think the media use of the term, even as a nebulous term to describe the demographic which elected these candidates, puts it on par with ideas like Red Tory or Blue Dog Democrat or The Waffle. Two of the last three were internal factions within existing parties, one is more a ideological distinction. While it is a little bit of a WP:CRYSTAL, I imagine that political scientists will be looking at the concept of a Teal Independent and how it played into this election as people write their post-mortems about this election. Bkissin (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The teal independents and the "voices of" movements overlap but aren't synonymous; there were viable candidates of both groups who weren't in the other group, and others who were in both. They've also got somewhat different histories, albeit both tracing lineage from Voices for Indi. I think they're pretty distinct and that trying to merge the two movements (as opposed to clearly, separately explaining each) would just create an incomprehensible mess, and that Voices for Indi was such a significant campaign/group, already having a ton of book references, that it really warrants its own article as distinct from the broader movements that it inspired. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A gnews search indicates the term is well used in various media in Australia during and post the election. Satisfies WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with lower-case initials. I found the article helpful overall, as a Brit who hadn't heard of teals until they appeared in the Australian election news. I understand the concerns about being over-prescriptive about the word's associations, but do not regards these as strong enough grounds for total deletion – which would surely open the floodgates to uninformed or biassed (either way) people piling in with their own unhelpful definitions. Better to keep the article open as a consensus-seeking forum. I would prefer "teal independents" as being much less prescriptive than "Teal Independents". 79.73.19.136 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that we should use lowercase "teal" rather than uppercase, although that can be changed regardless of this AFD discussion. Steelkamp (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it describes a political phenomenon and is a highly notable occurrence in Australian politics. While the term is arguable ill-defined, that is merely because of how it is used, and wikipedia is not here to pass judgement on the definitions of terms Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Clearly this topic should be covered. This appears to be a content dispute dressed up as an AfD because it's about how to talk about the Teals. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soga Maina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Current references are databases. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:48, 29 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) 02:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:11, 31 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misti Hobbs[edit]

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

Tagged for BLP PROD but the article does have sources. I'm still not sure she meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, appears to be a promotional page for her political campaign. Can be recreated if she wins. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. The notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates are not entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability claim per WP:POLITICIAN. Insufficient RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC as activist or podcaster. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a politician, simply running for office is insufficient to have an article on Wikipedia. I see no significant coverage her other activities that would meet WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Welcome to campaign season folks! Candidates almost never meet WP:NPOL, and this one is no exception. IF she wins in November, we can re-assess a draft. Bkissin (talk) 17:23, 31 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. Essentially, nobody except the nominator wants to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay Ginebra San Miguel all-time roster[edit]

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

Non-notable list of Philippine Basketball Association players that is almost entirely unsourced, and rife with red links and potentially dubious information. At the very least, I would argue that the page should be gutted to be verifiable, but I think deletion might be the better way to go about it. fuzzy510 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Philippines. fuzzy510 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I can add sources for the players and most info. I think this page is vital for Ginebra fans because this is the only place that lists all the players for Ginebra in its 40 year plus history. It would be hard if someone had to recreate this page again because all PBA teams have all-time PBA rosters Wikipedia pages. So let me try to put some updates and make this page look better. D-Flo27 (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the new sources added, and the fact that Barangay Ginebra San Miguel is culturally significant to the Philippines as a major basketball team, the article is probably fine enough to keep for now, although I would prefer everything to be fully sourced, and maybe remove some of the less reliable player names without sources. Though good work to the guy that added sources, that list is long, keep it up, fellow Wikipedian!.RandomDwarfEnthusiast (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Most of the unsourced players I left played before the late 2000s, so sources for those would be much harder to find, since most PBA info before the late 2000s has not been digitized yet, or compiled into a digital database. I would have to look for news articles that they joined the team, left the team, and other basic info. So yeah, thanks for keeping the page. D-Flo27 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. Barangay Ginebra San Miguel is easily the most popular team in the Philippine Basketball Association, still the most popular sports league in a country of 110 million people. This is analogous to deleting List of Manchester United F.C. players, which will never be approached by a deletion discussion such as this. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the cultural significance of the team in the Philippines, but comparing this list to a featured list of players who all have established notability for playing for one of the most prominent sports teams in the world? It's apples and oranges. And as it is, there's been very little citation added beyond adding entries from RealGM, which runs afoul of the first point of WP:SPORTBASIC. -fuzzy510 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wish sourcing this is as easy as linking to a BBC Sport or ESPN team profile, but, hey this is the Philippines and nobody has the money to do that. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Howard the Duck's point. No one has the resources or the time to make a Philippine site like basketball-reference.com, not even the league itself, where it would be much easier to cite. The official PBA website itself only records players who are currently playing in the PBA, meaning it doesn't have records on players from earlier eras. As for the only one source, if you look at the Chicago Bulls all-time roster, for example, the only source there is from basketball-reference.com. And RealGM is as reliable as basketball-reference. D-Flo27 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public High League[edit]

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 02:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Missouri. MB 02:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local coverage of local high school sports division. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and can't find any non routine coverage. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:36, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ImmunityBio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No issue with the Refund action and I normally wouldn't re-nominate this as soon as it closed (full disclosure, my close), but the requester has done nothing to refute the concerns raised at the AfD and the concerns remain, as indicated by the restoration of tags. No indication of CORP DEPTH nor any indication of notability Star Mississippi 01:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Science. Star Mississippi 01:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to all those involved in prior AfD, restoration: @Slywriter @Jay @CactiStaccingCrane @HighKing @Graham Beards Star Mississippi 01:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete think its mostly WP:TOOSOON and currently fails WP:NCORP as a result. There is no lack of googleable information, but their is a lack of reliable, secondary sources discussing the company in-depth especially outside of its early inclusion in 'Warp Speed' for non-primate human testing. And that coverage is focused on the possible vaccine, not the company.Slywriter (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll simply repeat what I said at the previous AfD. Since this is a company the appropriate guidelines is WP:NCORP. I have to agree with the nom. We've some references that discusses the product (the vaccine and its technology or its "billionaire" owner) but the criteria dictates we require references that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:45, 31 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 02:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antin Nanotaake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; sources listed are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 29 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) 00:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as article creator. Was created in good faith as a member of a non-FIFA team who had played in an official FIFA / OFC tournament and won fulfilled WP:NFOOTY. However, recent changes put much clearer emphasis on GNG and rightly so and as I lack the ability to review offline i-Kiribati sources, there are no grounds to keep. Fenix down (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:54, 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 no consensus. UPE in creation and a new editor just happens to nominate this article for deletion? Something smells rotten in Denmark. No objection to an established editor making a nomination if they feel it's appropriate. Star Mississippi 02:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Otten (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable speech coach. UPE was blocked a month ago when they started this page, User:Sabel Naveen/sandbox. Writing style hints that they are part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hammad Chaudhry/Archive.

As an actor, he has acted in minor roles, short films, advertisements/commercials, clearly fails WP:NACTOR. The award he received is a run-of-the-mill award, so can't pass WP:ANYBIO on that basis. His book is self-published. Most of the sources are podcasts/interview which aren't secondary sources. Lunga Maphahla (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After web research per WP:NEXIST, I do not see how this would pass the WP:GNG. If someone else does, they are welcome to ping me. Difficulty was that the name is quite common. Thank you for a very worthwhile AfD nomination, Lunga Maphahla! gidonb (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't comment on the notability of the sources, most of the roles seem minor. The paid-promotion/socking doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know article needs some more citations but the person has notability and meets Wikipedia criteria. I don't know anything about this "User:Sabel Naveen/sandbox" and how come "Lunga Maphahla" just created a new account and came to nominate this article? Lunga also made a few edits [23] on the article, and added Herman Otten's website as a speaking coach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karemsingh (talk • contribs) 18:08, 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. Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bipasha Kabir[edit]

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

Proposing re-draftification. Questionable notability from sources given. Moved by draft creator to mainspace ignoring AfC, probably some COI/UPE going on as well. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most popular item girl in Bangladeshi film. Have appeared in more than 30 films among them 4-5 as a leading lady. Abbasulu (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources appear to be tabloids (who she married etc), can't comment on the notability of the sources. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE as the article was declined in twice by AFC review with this diff and this diff but user moved the declined AfC draft to mainspace with this diff, also was deleted 3 times as per the log. The AFC rule violation is also a concern here. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Abbasulu (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC) (duplicate !vote stricken off — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Delete WP:ENT is not getting full filled. All the roles played by her are insignificant and not a lead role. Jimandjam (talk) 03:56, 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 Reverse merge. as suggested with Fourth Franklin County Courthouse being merged here. "Custom" because script can't handle oddities. Will manually tag momentarily. Star Mississippi 02:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin County Courthouse (Illinois)[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:MILL municipal building. No claim of notability in the article. Searching finds some routine local coverage. MB 23:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Illinois. MB 23:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. A quick search found that there is enough reliable independent coverage available to pass WP:GNG. I'm on my phone and in a hurry just now so currently unable to link to it directly. NemesisAT (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Fourth Franklin County Courthouse should be merged into this article keeping the title.Djflem (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Djflem seems reasonable, including because "Fourth Franklin County Courthouse" appears not to have ever been a name used in the real world. There are numerous U.S. county courthouse articles which cover current and historical buildings of the same county. It is usually better to cover them together to provide more context, to understand why the successor ones were built, etc. Note there is a merger proposal now at Talk:Fourth_Franklin_County_Courthouse where some participants here have commented (I have not commented there, but do support "merge"). That merger proposal could/should be closed by the closer of this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 15:07, 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 keep. Proponents of deletion have argued that the topic fails DICDEF, but there was only one editor who argued this with certainty. Those wishing to keep the article have denied that the article fails DICDEF, and argued that the article passes at least general notability guideline.

There is a consensus that the article is in need of improvement. That may be fixed through normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Politrukki (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food quality[edit]

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

PRODded by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) with rationale:

Food quality is a very vague topic that belongs more in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. There is no information here that couldn't be included in a different article.

Endorsed by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), but deprodded by StellarNerd (talk · contribs), who asserted importance without further improvement. I agree that this might fail WP:DICDEF, but I am not confident about my opinion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Health and fitness. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as prod-2-er. Total dicdef here, redundant to other articles, undersourced. If there is a valid topic, then WP:TNT needs to be applied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as food quality is a topic of paramount importance and the current article is not a dictionary definition, being much beyond. If the article should be improved, improve it, don't delete it. Most important food quality is handled by extensive sources. There are dedicated academic journals like Journal of Food Quality and Food Quality and Preference, both of which rate Wikipedia articles. The academic journal articles on the subject are beyond count, but a few examples are Peri, Claudio. "The universe of food quality." Food quality and preference 17.1-2 (2006): 3-8., Grunert, Klaus G. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand." European review of agricultural economics 32.3 (2005): 369-391., Cardello, Armand V. "Food quality: relativity, context and consumer expectations." Food quality and preference 6.3 (1995): 163-170.. There are handbooks on the subject, such as Food Quality and Shelf Life, Food Quality Assurance: Principles and Practices, and Food Quality And Standards - Volume I. There are, in fact, hundreds of books on the subject. As many would say You Are What You Eat, and food quality is all about that. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:30, 22 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, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question (and I'm leaning delete) to those who think this should stay? Would you also advocate for an article on Drink quality, House quality, Table quality? What is special about Food quality? CT55555 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is rather vague, I'd expect a discussion of food standards, quality testing or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It needs to include government bodies (and their responsibilities) regulating it (in the US, the Food and Drug Administration, Food Safety and Inspection Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Environmental Protection Agency), and pertinent laws, e.g. the Food Quality Protection Act. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is covered by Food safety. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just look at Google Scholar. The topic has been discussed in academic journals. Even the EU has a whole page on it. Just because it is not sexy and Wikipedia no longer has editors who want to work on mundane articles does not mean it should be deleted. It should be improved (not by me, of course).Outdatedpizza (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Love your username, User:Outdatedpizza, it is so appropriate for this discussion! StellarNerd (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; @CT55555:, valid question. The answer is that there are plenty of written sources for food quality, but I don't expect to find a lot on table quality! There are whole journals dedicated to the subject, such as Food Quality and Preference published by Elsevier, I think, "Food Quality and Safety" by Oxford (yes, also covers safety), and Journal of Food Quality. I'm not sure this article is currently all that great, but the subject is definitely widely written-about. It's of interest to governments, and hence we have Food_Quality_Protection_Act, but that's not an appropriate redirect as the subjet of food quality in general is greater than the US legal framework to deal with it. Food quality is also fundamentally different to food safety, and yet of great interest to the public, who expect more of their food than merely that it won't actually make them ill. Elemimele (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. I was going to !vote delete. I'm now not sure, so I'll stay away from voting. CT55555 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, CT55555, I didn't mean to gang up on you, or bludgeon you into a different opinion! I thought your question deserved an answer, because it's a valid question to ask. It made me think, and go and look what sources exist, so it was worth you asking it. Elemimele (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have no need to apologise. You have done exactly what we all aim to do at AfD, help people reach conclusions and and persuade people to change their minds. This is an AfD success moment. CT55555 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG as the primary subject of many reliable sources including peer reviewed academic journals and books. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep. This subject meets any number of standards of notability. A google search, google news search, google scholar search, google books search each come up with more than enough evidence of sources on their own. The topic is broad, but not as the nomination suggests, vague. It’s concrete, people get degrees in food quality, have careers in food quality, there are publications dedicated to food quality, companies that specialize in food quality… Jacona (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources offered by StellarNerd are more than enough to establish notability under the WP:GNG. WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I have every reason to believe that ordinary editing is more than capable of improving the page. Given this, the deletion policy indicates that this article should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BElls[edit]

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

Not a notable instrument by any metric. Simply a trademarked version of the handpan. My search for sources has only come across forums. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. – Fayenatic London 12:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford-Montgomery Labs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2008 no consensus, where closer acknowledged it was an A7 candidate. While it subsequently made the news for allegedly re-neging on sponsorship agreement, there is zero evidence of notability for the company or its product. Star Mississippi 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and Georgia (U.S. state). Star Mississippi 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to those still active from the prior AfD: @DGG, Fabrictramp, and Frank: Star Mississippi 16:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability was not established before, and the company is now defunct, seemingly having never achieved notability in the first place. Frank | talk 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 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.

[1] "Imran Riaz Khan Biography – Anchor & Journalist Age – Wife". Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[2] "Samaa News Fired News Anchor Imran Riaz Khan for Supporting Imran Khan". Startup Pakistan. 9 April 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[3] "Anchor Imran Riaz Khan joins Express News". The Namal. 10 May 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[4] "Imran Riaz Khan Inside Story | Ex PM Imran Khan vs Imported Government | Pakistan News Room". BOL News. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[5] Khalid, Usama (4 May 2022). "Hoshyarian Eid Special | Imran Riaz Khan | 4th MAY 2022". Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[6] "Islamabad: Anchor Imran Riaz Khan has reportedly been taken off air by Samaa TV. | Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF)". www.pakistanpressfoundation.org. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[7] Khan, Imad. "On the Wrong Side of the Government, Pakistani Journalists Turn to YouTube". CNET. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[8] "PM postpones address to nation, discusses threat letter with journalists". Samaa. 30 March 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[9] "Journalist Imran Khan who victim-blamed Noor Mukadam is reportedly a friend of Zahir Jaffer's lawyer". MM News TV. 12 August 2021. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[10] "Anchor Imran Riaz Khan illegally killed Black & Grey Partridges in a protected area". The Pakistan Daily. 28 November 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[11] Mehmood, Munazza (11 August 2021). "Anchor Imran Riaz Khan Clarifies His Stance on 'Victim-Blaming' Noor Mukadam [Video]". Lens. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[12] "Pakistani TV anchors' palace like houses and lavish life style raising many questions". PakDestiny. 5 November 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[13] Mustafa, Muahmmad (26 July 2020). "Sharif Brothers Corruption Plan Revealed Anchor Imran Riaz Khan". NetMag Pakistan. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[14] "TV anchor's argument with female politician sparks criticism". Daily Times. 2 July 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[15] "FBR serves notice on journalist Imran Riaz Khan for income tax audit". Pakistan Today. 8 May 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]