Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 29 May 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Scarpinito[edit]

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

Promotional and fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing in this article indicates notability. BD2412 T 01:20, 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 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Skrovan[edit]

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

Has a few writing credits to his name, but sourcing is nonexistant. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atanuea Eritara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:53, 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muthana Mithqal Sartawi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He invented a new medical technique which has got him lots of media attention, a meeting with the Emir of Kuwait, and features in academic paper on the topic. I think he therefore passes:
  1. WP:GNG on account of the multiple media sources already cited
  2. WP:CREATIVE criterion 2, for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" - we don't normally use WPCREATIVE outside the arts, but he did literaly do what is in there, and creating a medical technique is...creative.
  3. WP:ANYBIO criterion 2, for creating "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
  4. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 2 ("The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." in his case, if the categories are correct, he's a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada CT55555 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't trust a category to support it, it could be a mistake, hoax or deliberate misinformation. When I searched at Canadian Royal College Directory the name didn't come up. There is one paper along with two other names mentioning the operation and it was entered into the Knee replacement article. There is no mention on Google scholar. This man operates in North America and Canada and you would expect something, although I think lots of doctors are too busy to bother registering their emails but they still get indexed, but I can't see much. There is several papers of his where the citation is very low that are recent. Another doctor I'm working on at Draft:Hans-Christoph Pape has a very high h-index and there is at least 5 papers with more than 100 citations. This is a very crude measurements of notablily, but it gives a quick indication if they are notable. I can't find any papers of his approaching those citation counts. There was three people on that paper, so he could have been junior surgeon being trained by a consultant, who didn't want the hassle (a common scenario) Lastly, that paper has two citations, which is woeful. You've read the article and used that as the source instead of looking for independent evidence to verify for notability per WP:V. It is still delete. scope_creepTalk 07:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair assessment about my point 4, but I still think inventing the technique alone is enough to warrant a keep vote. And the simple GNG. Right? CT55555 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't proved anything. I couldn't find a single thing of worth on him. The first block of 7 refs, are passing mentions and profiles. A while ago, I learned they are usually written by the person themseleves. There was three folk who wrote that paper, but it needs coverage beyond it. There is nothing in that that first block of references that indicate he passes WP:CNG. scope_creepTalk 17:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't try to prove anything, the article seemed to do that sufficiently well as it stands. It seems clear to me that he invented a new medical technique and that's a really big deal with regards to notability. Are you doubting that he invented a new medical technique? Or doubting that gives him a pass? I can probably be more specific if I understood your concern better. CT55555 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is going nowhere. I've asked another editor to take a look. scope_creepTalk 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you're being transparent about that, but also please be aware of WP:CANVASS directing canvassing activity towards central locations and away from specific individuals unless they made substantive contributions, expertise in similar topics, asked to be kept informed. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His (maybe lapsed?) fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, which was questioned above, is verified here (Wikipedia allows primary sourced material for academic issues) and that alone makes him notable for the reasons in my first comment above. More details about the same-day-knee replacement technique that the subject of the article created, is here. CT55555 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are profiles references, likely written by himself in a private hospitals. They are dreadful and again don't prove anything. scope_creepTalk
You consider King's College Hospital Dubai not to be a decent source to verify if a doctor is a fellow? You think a globally renowned hospital network might be making false statements about the credentials of their doctors? This is a matter of verifiability, not notability (notability flows from the fact to be verified). I'm sorry to say that your dismissal of this so strongly is surprising. It would be global news if the guy who replaced George Bush's knee joint, the guy endorsed by the Emir, was faking his credentials on one of the most famous hospital networks. This is not a credible scenario. CT55555 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This fellowship is obviously not a "highly selective honor" in the sense of WP:NPROF: according to the article, "about 90% of certified physicians decide to become Fellows within two years of their certification", i.e., it's not a particularly competitive or prestigious position. --JBL (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, well made. I agree. I was wrong about that bit.
We should not confer notability by his fellowship. I do remain keep on the basis of him inventing a new medical procedure. CT55555 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reference to working on George Bush's knee joint states: he was among the medical team that performed an operation for former US President George W. Bush?!. He didn't lead it, or it would have mentioned it.
So far we have
  1. He invented a new medical procedure, yet the paper has three authors, so he could be the junior partner and the other two consultants.
  2. The citation count for the papers I've looked are very low, so probably doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. I can't identify his h-index. For example, I'm working on Draft:Hans-Christoph Pape. Its 3 second of work in Google Scholar to see he is notable, but can't see anything on this man.
  3. He has a lapsed FRCSC. Doesn't prove he notable. scope_creepTalk 22:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of authors talking about his work on a paper isn't important. That he invented a new medical procedure is the key thing here and let's ignore everything else and acknowledge that is a very notable thing. CT55555 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The highest-cited paper I could find had 16 citations (and all the others were very low); that doesn't suggest meeting WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, operating on Bush's knee isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Inventing the medical procedure is what I think makes him notable. CT55555 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have sought input from WikiProject Medicine here CT55555 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: Your starting to repeat, ad nauseam, inventing the medical procedure. That is form of WP:BLUDGEON. Can you calm it right down. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 16:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. And sorry if I did that, it did seem like nobody was listening. Any bludgeon is not intentional. I'll not repeat it. All the best. CT55555 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to lean keep for the seemingly notable knee replacement methodology (is WP:NACADEMIC perhaps in need of medical supplementation for these kinds of medical developments?), though I expect the limited amount of independent coverage will mean it's mostly stub length for the time being. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent question about WP:NACADEMIC. I say yes, but what's the way to get there? Village Pump? Talk page of WP:NACADEMIC? CT55555 (talk) 17:48, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire World and Cornbelt Stockman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage anywhere. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's two references and a link to the newspaper archive in the article. Are you saying this article needs more sources? Kirk (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found another source for you & I figure I could find others that talk 'about' this paper and the publisher (Cornbelt Stockman Publishing Co. Springfield, IL). Kirk (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" - I'm not seeing significant or detailed coverage in independent sources here. Paradoxsociety 08:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm going weak instead of full because it was published for 16 years, and there's some record of its articles being cited, but not much about the publication itself. The fact that it was published from 1910-1926 explains why there isn't much info to be found. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:19, 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 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Takinoa Tekaei[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sivan Sir[edit]

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

Non-notable. Refs are blogs. No real coverage. scope_creepTalk 20:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete leaving aside that this article is a mess and should be reduced to a stub if not deleted so it's not a hagiography, I don't see much evidence of notability. The Hindu Times reference is a (rather bad) book review, but while indicative of possible notability, doesn't itself provide it. The rest are worthless insofar as supporting a GNG claim. I found stray mentions but no SIGCOV in a search. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 09:52, 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 14:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FlashPoint (company)[edit]

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

Fails ncorp. Native advertising. scope_creepTalk 21:04, 23 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) 21:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article about an investment company, created from a repurposed redirect. The article text describes a company going about its business, supported by announcement-based references. I am not seeing evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. (Nor do I see any benefit in restoring the 2014 redirect.) AllyD (talk) 09:21, 26 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, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails NCORP, references are nothing but PR and annoucements, nothing that meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 12:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to GCSE Science. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Science[edit]

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

This appears to be WP:SYNTH and possible WP:OR of various sources unrelated to the topic. I do not see in a sampling of the sources any actual mention of the purported subject. It's also heavy on Primary documents and citations such as nature are to listing of articles on nature.com Slywriter (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think redirect makes the most sense here as a valid term; I don't think there's anything here worth saving or notable on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the notability is not established. Out of the 27 refs, ~15 relate to GCSE, and many of them overall are to describe the meaning of a topic (e.g. the ref in Organization is a dictionary definition). It's something that I would consider a course catalog (i.e. WP:NOTCATALOG). SWinxy (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to GCSE Science. Current Triple Science page is essentially like a study guide and is un-encyclopedic, and none of the content looks like it could be easily merged with the GCSE Science page (which itself requires more work after having been nominated for deletion once and kept). Although Science education in England provides better context, the GCSE covers not only England, but also Wales and Northern Ireland, so it's problematic. Argument for keeping the term itself as a "Redirect" rather than a straight "Delete" is that "Triple Science" is indeed a commonly used term that is frequently searched, along with "Combined Science", and without the redirect, it's possible someone might attempt to create this article as a standalone yet again, not realising that the GCSE Science article exists, and that is really where any editors wishing to expand content should be directing their attention. For now. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, that is a good redir target. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 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. ✗plicit 13:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awoken (band)[edit]

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

non-notable band, no significant coverage, no major reviews PRAXIDICAE💕 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Studio audience. ✗plicit 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Applause sign[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks sufficient references. At best, redirect to Audience response or one of the other wikilinked articles mentioned. Geoff | Who, me? 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/TNT - searching on Google Scholar, "Applause sign" does appear to be a notable topic, but the applause sign described in academic literature is totally unrelated to the current subject of this article, instead referring to a diagnostic test for Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases. [1] [2] So, there is a notable topic to be written at this title, but precisely none of the current content will be relevant to it. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Studio audience. It is a thing that exists in a narrow context. If another sense is developed into an article later, the title or hatnote situation can be figured out at that time. BD2412 T 18:24, 24 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, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, I think I'm up to the task of writing a stub about the medical topic and intend to do that once it's been decided what to do with the existing content. signed, Rosguill talk 04:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested and is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Greg Giraldo. ✗plicit 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midlife Vices[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. Delete or redirect to the comedian's article, Greg Giraldo. Geoff | Who, me? 22:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Redirect I found this but it's paywalled [[3]]. Can't find other media coverage so probably better to redirect. As far as merging, since this article and his other album's article (Good Day to Cross a River) are so short, would it be disproportionate to put the track listing in the discography section of his article? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:42, 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 Larry Wright (cartoonist). With four people calling to merge in <24 hours, I see no reason to oppose this. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kit 'n' Carlyle[edit]

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

Defunct comic strip with very little coverage. I created this stub back in 2009 and it has not changed one iota since. Sources are an encyclopedia, 404, and a primary source that's now dead. Deprodded because "it warrants coverage" Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Michigan. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That's an incomplete and misleading excerpting of my de-PROD summary. What I wrote was that a strip that lasted for 25 years warrants coverage. I stand by that view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Warrants coverage"? Coverage with what though? The current sources are an encyclopedia, a 404 link that wasn't archived, and the also now dead site for the strip itself. Did you find any reliable sources I did not? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. "Warrants" makes me things of WP:WRONGS (or maybe WP:ITSIMPORTANT...). NYB, you've been here for close to 25 years yourself, you should know better :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Jong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. However, a person with the same name [4] appears on the Coral Sun Airways page as the founder. Don't think this is the same person however. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 30 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) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to enough reliable secondary sources giving in-depth coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:04, 31 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) 05:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and creator above. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable and the author agrees. IrishOsita (talk) 03:17, 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 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lewis[edit]

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

Lacks notability; 10th place finish on one season of Survivor and that’s it. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:34, 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 redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers. ATD. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palamo Kulene[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:32, 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 redirect to Survivor: Ghost Island#Contestants. ✗plicit 03:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Noble[edit]

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

Lacks notability; 13th place finish on one season of Survivor and that’s it. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient, especially for a BLP Star Mississippi 18:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alopua Petoa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep - “trivial mentions”? You mean, a pagelong interview with FIFA Oceania and enough coverage to fill multiple paragraphs, and being the most capped player in his country’s history? Are you trying to imply that no Tuvalu footballer ever gets a page no matter what his/her accomplishments just because Tuvalu doesn’t have much online media presence? An even better question, AFD was created to help make Wikipedia a better place. Do you really believe for one second that wiping out an article of this length with this many sources helps Wikipedia? 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although reference 2 is titled as an interview, it gives a lot of background coverage which should be enough to count towards WP:GNG. Though WP:GNG says that "multiple sources are generally expected", given the scarcity of information about Tuvalu available online, Petoa's accomplishments (most capped Tuvaluan), and the extent of the article, I think an exception is warranted here. The two Tuvaluan Games championships mentioned in the article on the interview also meets "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" in WP:BIO (at least within the realm of football of Oceania). EternalNomad (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the interview is not by Fifa Oceania, but from a weebly-hosted blog interested in "non"-Fifa-affiliated countries. Probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source, but in any case shouldn't be misrepresented to bolster the "keep" side. Fram (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d question the assertion that it is a blog. Weebly is a site-hosting service in general, and not exclusively for blogs. The site includes name and contact information, which reliable sources typically have. Furthermore, the interview was picked up by the official Friends of Tuvalu (a well-known website covering Tuvalu football) twitter page, so I don’t think there is any reason to believe it is made up. 172.58.30.172 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may question it to your hearts' delight, but the page itself says "It is a bilingual blog in English and Portuguese. Giving the opportunity for other people to be informed about football in those regions of Oceania." Feel free to link to that "Friends of Tuvalu" site here so we can judge it. Fram (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there are two tweets from related organizations. The Netherlands Oceania Support Foundation tweet is here: [5] and has website [6]. The Tuvalu Friends organization is here: [7] and has site [8]. NOSFoundation is cited by Solomon Times here [9] so there is absolutely no reason to believe they are not reliable. 172.58.176.152 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a retweet from an organization intending to promote Oceania football, that is apparently reliable because they were used as a source for one page on a website that itself has no indication of editorial policy ("an electronic gateway to the most recent news and information available on the web" sounds more like a link aggregator than an source that actually features original reporting), meant to show anything? Besides, said Solomon Times article is word-for-word copied from the NOS Foundation page so it might as well be a press release. (The "Tuvalu Friends" retweet is even worse.) eviolite (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. The "FIFA source" is in fact not from FIFA, and it hardly seems to be like a reliable source. --Angelo (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only non-trivial source here is, as noted above, absolutely unaffiliated with FIFA and a fan blog run by one non-subject-matter-expert with no editorial overlook. eviolite (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fan blogs are not reliable sources, period. Wikipedia is to be built on reliable sources, not blogs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge to Tuvalu national football team. As the highest scorer for their international team, and the most frequently selected for captain (tied), this is certainly a valid alternative to outright deletion (which I don't see the benefit of), per WP:ATD-M, and content history is certainly worth WP:PRESERVEing, should someone uncover sources from this small nation's small press options. -2pou (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated to keep above. Are people dismissing reference #4? Sure, it's from the Netherlands, but there are machine translation tools available... -2pou (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • By all means, then, apply them, and tell us what reference #4 says. (You might find, as I did, that it's a broken link, but sure, go for it.) Ravenswing 21:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a look at reference #4 from Wayback Machine, and I would not really call it as nothing more than a passing mention of the subject [10], the article itself is just mentioning the subject above and another player were to join an amateur Dutch team for training. Is that a "significant coverage" addressing the subject directly and in detail? Not really. --Angelo (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, Angelo. I'll admit to being pretty crass in that comment given what I interpreted as a lazy nomination and gave a lazy response expecting not to do all the legwork, which was not fair. The source may not be longest, but even removing quotes, I'm seing over WP:100W, which, though an essay, is a measurement of "significant" that can one can choose to use or not. I use it seeing GNG as a low bar meant to keep the average Joe/company out, yet still pretty inclusive, being WP:NOTPAPER.

        Fully recognizing that others may not use the same measurement, though, I stand by the recommendation that if not kept, a merge to Tuvalu national football team be considered as the alternative given his high standing with the team and the fact that there is some coverage out there in the first place, which is much more than some of his teammates. -2pou (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly passes GNG. The source is independent and reliable.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Which specific sources do you claim are both reliable AND independent of the subject? Ravenswing 21:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Is this person (or whatever it's supposed to be) really notable? Do provide an answer if you can. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a genuine statement? Please be WP:CIVIL and respectful of other cultures/names as "or whatever it's supposed to be" comes off quite rude. You can clearly see that this is a person by taking a look at the article. -2pou (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, dude. "whatever it's supposed to be"? You need to seriously consider the implications of your comment here, and I'd strongly encourage you to strike it. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 12:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor self-identifies as autistic, FWIW. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No SIGCOV in RS. Hopefully keep !votes based on the blog coverage are just totally unaware of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:N and will familiarize themselves before participating in another AfD... Otherwise we're dealing with either a severe WP:CIR issue or deliberate misrepresentation of source quality. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 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. there is no independent sourcing that backs up the claims to notability, so nothing to merge. Star Mississippi 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viliamu Sekifu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, the sources aren't trivial.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A reliable source must be independent, AND reliable, AND provide significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards, and for Ortizesp to repeatedly ignore that these sources are coming from the football federations (and thus not independent) or from blogposts (and thus not reliable) is either extremely careless or outright disingenuous. Ravenswing 21:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ortizesp. Sekifu also scored probably the most important goal in Tuvalu football history, and would've definitely received coverage in local newspapers, as there are no local online sources regarding Tuvaluan news. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: What specific sources do you claim provide independent, significant coverage to the subject? Ravenswing 13:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. Perhaps someone may want to create Taui Saiasi Hauma, who at least has the olympics source going for them? I also found on Google Books "Football Club Geopolitics: 22 histoires insolites pour comprendre le monde", a French book that writes a few pages about Tuvalu football as a whole but is unfortunately only a trivial mention of Sekifu. casualdejekyll 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References 5 and 6, although not mainly about Sekifu, detail his important positions and his statements about Tuvalu's participation in the Olympics, which I think meets SIGCOV. EternalNomad (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes from a subject -- and that's all those two sources are, the first one being a mere single sentence -- don't satisfy the notability OF a subject. Ravenswing 04:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Ravenswing. GNG not remotely demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sport in Tuvalu: Concur that this player may have scored the most important goal in the nation’s history with the sport, and that fact is valuable encyclopedic knowledge to be WP:PRESERVED at the larger National article. However I can’t see anything suggesting the individual player article can meet GNG at the moment. If someone uncovered some sources, it can be restored at that time. - 2pou (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tuvalu national football team. Consensus is clear that coverage isn't at GNG level, but this is a valid ATD. Content is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge. Star Mississippi 14:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaisua Liva[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The second reference is very obviously not just a trivial mention, so the rationale for this nomination is invalid. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless this article fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second reference is very obviously a primary source, so the rationale for this nomination is quite valid. Ravenswing 01:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No other sources to be found on Google, and the only non-trivial information (from the Tuvalu National Football Association) is effectively just a press release, covering topics relevant to the organization itself (hence not independent or secondary). eviolite (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. Ravenswing 00:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of WP:GNG - my reasoning is this, Tuvalu in a tiny South Pacific nation and therefore you cannot expect the coverage of a national soccer team player to have the same depth of coverage to that of larger countries. If you intend to head down this path then Wikipedia appears to be discriminatory against minorities. NealeWellington (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Neither the GNG, nor indeed any other notability guideline on Wikipedia, have opt-outs for a putative lack of sources. As has been demonstrated, there are indeed media outlets on Tuvalu. If those outlets do not provide the substantive coverage to a subject the GNG requires, the answer isn't that we should therefore ignore the GNG. The answer is that a Wikipedia article cannot be sustained on the subject. Ravenswing 21:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Response what I am arguing and maybe this is not the place, is that in terms of the application of GNG, this becomes punative to minor nations where there is limited media and from an international perspecitve the euro-centric mainstream media are unlikely to make mention. I would not disagree with you if this article were about, say a New Zealand player, but given it Tuvalu and the limitation on its reporting I think it meets GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it still doesn't meet the GNG, because the GNG still does not admit to opt-outs. Whether you want the GNG to have such opt-outs is another matter, and you are of course able to go to the appropriate talk page and seek to mobilize consensus to support your POV. But to claim that this is "punishing" Tuvalu is absurd: you could just as readily claim that the GNG "punishes" Plymouth, Massachusetts -- a town with a land area similar to that of Tuvalu's, and six times the population -- for its star high school soccer players not qualifying for Wikipedia articles (despite media coverage a fair bit more comprehensive), for no better reason than that Plymouth isn't an independent polity. Ravenswing 01:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep second reference helps him pass GNG IMO, and the federation is obviously independent of the person.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GNG requires independent sources, as you well know. The second source is the federation itself, which of course is not independent. (That being said, the first source is a broken link.) Ravenswing 21:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question: have you ever actually read a footballer AfD discussion before? JoelleJay (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: References 1 and 2 = multiple, thus meeting GNG. Worst case, merge to Tuvalu national football team. - 2pou (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference doesn't even work, the second one is arguably not a secondary source. Regardless WP:GNG states there needs to be multiple sources with extensive coverage and two (at best) simply would not meet WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the second is borderline, then perhaps a merge is better. Actually maybe just redirect. He already has mentions in place there, and I'm not sure what else would need merging.
    @Sportsfan 1234: the first link not working is solved by going to the WayBack Machine (https://web.archive.org). Nearly all Wikipedia links are backed up there, so if you are very active in the AfD area, I highly recommend its use. It is an excellent tool! Regarding two (at best) simply would not meet WP:GNG, we will just not see eye to eye there (though your borderline comment has talked me back in this case). GNG has always been an intentionally low bar to meet, and my personal inclination is anything that has two sources of at least WP:100W (essay, I know, but it's something to measure "significant" with) will meet GNG as two is multiple. As I said, that's just me, though. All the best, 2pou (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The archive link for the first ref was actually broken too, I had to find the article through other means (link in source assess table). The second ref is definitely not usable for notability purposes; organizations a subject belongs to are never considered independent. JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuvalu national football team (updated !vote per above) since he has decent coverage, though appearing to fall short of GNG, and he already has mention on the page. -2pou (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In this instance some claims to coverage significant and widespread enough to satisfy gng. Needs further discussion to create a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Am I missing something here? It is immediately apparent that nothing in the article is remotely SIGCOV in IRS, so what are these secret sources the keep !votes are referring to?

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
AD.nl article (I tracked down the actual link) Yes Yes No There are exactly 3 non-quote sentences in this article, zero of them specifically on Vaisua Liva (as opposed to the pair of him and Alopua) ✘ No
TNFA No The player's own football association is obviously not independent Yes ? No point checking since the source is not independent ✘ No
Oceania Football Confederation link #1 (access denied) No OFC is ofc not independent of its members Yes ? ✘ No
Oceania Football Confederation link #2 (access denied) No Yes ? ✘ No
Oceania Football Confederation link #3 (access denied) No Yes ? ✘ No
Oceania Football Confederation link #4 (access denied) No Yes No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 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 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derold Page[edit]

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

I can't find any sources about this individual. There's a chance they're out there, given his art seems to have been primarily published pre-1980, but I couldn't find anything. Sam Walton (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and South Africa. Sam Walton (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few scattered hits in Gbooks where he seems to deal with cats in art. Probably need a deep dive to find more. Gscholar, Jstor and the NYT all come up with zip. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should have zero articles based on a personal website. Nothing substantial has been found about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 02:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Deadliest Snakes with Nigel Marven[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources. Prod contested on talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Found nothing to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing vote to Keep based on the citations found by Cunard below. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I make an info box with the names of the cameremen, editors and other members of the crew on this series, can the article stay? I created the article years ago, and this is a show I know very well. I have all the episodes, I can write more information about it. User talk:Blogorgonopsid 31 May 2022 5:56 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Dugdale, John; Kinnes, Sally (2014-06-15). "Choice - Thursday 19 June". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

      The article provides 113 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "His bark is worse Ten Deadliest Snakes (Eden, 3pm/9pm) Without a hint of sheepishness, Nigel Marven concedes in turn that (a) these are only the 10 deadliest snakes in Costa Rica, and (b) at least half of them aren't deadly at all, although they might give you a nasty nip. The fact that the list is restricted to one Central American country explains the absence of usual suspects such as cobras, mambas and taipans, with the rare, lengthy bushmaster taking the top place in a line-up dominated by varieties of viper. When not snake-spotting, Marven visits a lab that conducts research on them and hears how horses are used to produce antivenom."

    2. "DStv". Cape Argus. 2016-03-17. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

      The article provides 118 words of coverage about the subject. The article note: "Nigel Marven counts down his list of the Top 10 deadliest snakes in four parts of the world. From the rice paddies of India to the jungles of Malaysia, from the heat of the Australian Outback to the green fields of the English countryside, he uncovers incredible serpents and a host of other animals. In Malaysia he meets worshippers and vipers at Penang's famous snake temple and takes a boat trip through the mangrove swamps of Langkawi. In India thousands of people are killed by snake bites every year. In Australia, he encounters the most toxic serpent in the world, and in Europe his journey takes him from the ancient ruins of Turkey to the mountains of Spain."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. Arnold, Ben (2014-06-19). "TV highlights 19/06/2014". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

        The article provides 89 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "For the first of serpent expert Nigel Marven's new series, he heads to Costa Rica, which has a larger range of deadly snakes than seems strictly fair. Thankfully, the Costa Rican anti-venom business appears to be going great guns. Almost as gung-ho with his handling of such creatures as the late Steve Irwin – one has to presume he knows what he's doing – he grabs hold of any snake he sees with a zesty enthusiasm, including the terciopelo pit viper, which is responsible for half the bites in the country."

      2. "Ten Deadliest Snakes with Nigel Marven. Animal Planet, Channel 183, 22:00". The Sunday Times. 2016-03-13. Retrieved 2022-05-31 – via PressReader.

        The article provides 73 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Maybe I'm alone in this, but I can't help thinking that making a job out of chasing venomous snakes all over the world is a way of asking for trouble. But Nigel Marven doesn't agree, and htis show will highlight the 10 deadliest snakes in the world from locations such aas Australia, which is home to the most venemous snake, and India, where thousands of people apparently die from snake bits every year."

      3. Sanderson, Daniel (2017-12-04). "Ten Deadliest Snakes beats Alex Salmond in the TV ratings". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-09-25. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "According to The Sunday Mail, the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (Barb) showed that fewer people tuned in to Mr Salmond’s debut show than watched Ten Deadliest Snakes with Nigel Marven, on the Eden channel."

      4. "UKTV's Eden buys Nigel Marven snake series". TBI Vision. Informa. 2014-05-19. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

        The article provides 75 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "UKTV’s natural history channel Eden has pre-bought Ten Deadliest Snakes, a three-part wildlife series hosted by Nigel Marven. The upcoming series will follow the presenter as he Marven travels to America, South Africa and Costa Rica, to count down his list of each nation’s ten deadliest snakes."

      5. "The New Review: Television: Thursday 19: Picks of the Day: Natural History: Ten Deadliest Snakes With Nigel Marven Eden, 5pm, 6pm & 7pm". The Observer. 2014-06-15. p. 45. ProQuest 1535663684.

        The article provides 51 words of coverage. The article note: "Underrated natural historian Nigel Marven is back with an entire new series screened back-to-back in one evening, ..."

      6. "Nigel marven's new series puts deadliest snakes in the spotlight". Western Daily Press. 2014-06-14. Archived from the original on 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2022-05-31.

        The article notes: "He'll be educating people of all ages about serpents when his new series, Ten Deadliest Snakes With Nigel Marven, begins. As part of the series, he visits reptile-rich countries like America, South Africa and Costa Rica. ... Ten Deadliest Snakes starts on Eden on Thursday, June 19"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ten Deadliest Snakes with Nigel Marven to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cunard found clear evidence this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:30, 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. ✗plicit 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maraqiya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 21:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgette Wong[edit]

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

Lack of notability and reads like an advertisement/cv. I came across this page after finding spam advertisements in social media comment sections that point people towards a WhatsApp number they can call for advice, and I am worried that this page is being used in order to legitimise a potential scam. Jāzeps (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and found no result while searching (Im 45% sure this article may a hoax) Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional page, nothing even close to meeting notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Borderline G11. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 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 Speedy delete per G7. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteenth Boys[edit]

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

Unsourced and not notable Artem.G (talk) 20:21, 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 redirect to Entertainment Studios#Talk and magazine series. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Icons[edit]

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

Very few sources found. Prod contested as it's been prodded before, which Twinkle somehow failed to notice Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi Khanum[edit]

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

Lacks Notability Zaynab1418 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I very much wish people might actually read the original comment and follow-up and look at the article before voting where I say she is not in the further reading and is clearly not Bibi Khanum Astarabadi or Bibi Khanum consort of Timur and this probably not a real name. Zaynab1418 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a non-notable person. There are no in-line citations. In two of the books I checked given as references she is not mentioned at all. The notability of her father or son does not carry over to her. Searching for sources in English and Persian only brings up things about Bibi Khanum Astarbadi and Bibi Khanum mosque. I am not sure this is her given name vs it being a nickname/honorific as she has no given surname ("Lady Bibi"). The only information that comes up about her is copied from this Wikipedia page. --Zaynab1418 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep there are several offline sources in the further reading section. Unless someone has checked them out and is satisfied that they don’t amount to in depth coverage, we should not delete. Mccapra (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said in the initial comment, I checked and she is not mentioned. She is not mentioned literally at all in any of the three English language books and I just re-checked. They were given as "Further reading" not citations. They are generic books about Shi'ism and Shi'ism in Iraq. Searching her name in Arabic also brings up nothing relevant. Zaynab1418 (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The second listed Arabic book is a history of Shi'ism from the Buyid era to Safavid era which ended in 1736 when she died in 1950. Presumably, then, she is not mentioned. Fakhr el-Din's book is a history of Najaf in the Abbasid era which ended over 1,000 years before she was born, so also making it unlikely she is mentioned. It's very clear they were listing as further reading books about Shi'ism and Najaf and not about the subject of the biography. Maybe someone who speaks better Persian or Arabic than me can check those sources, but I did as well and found no coverage of her.
    I don't think Bibi Khanum is actually her given name as "Bibi" means "matron" and "Khanum" means lady in Persian. This is an honorific. Zaynab1418 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to add on again, but Bibi Khanum is very likely not her actual name. It's probably an honorific given to her in absence of knowing what her real name is because her son is a very famous ayatollah and the al-Mamaqani family is famous as well. All we can say about her is that she existed and may have been an Islamic scholar and her son was Muhammad al-Milani, but we literally do not even know her actual name or birth date let alone any biographical details that establish notability. She meets no criteria at all for notability. Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The The Oxford Encyclopedia Women in World History has a fairly extensive (549 words) article about her: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195148909.001.0001/acref-9780195148909-e-108 Vexations (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the same person. That is an entry for Bibi Khanum Astarabadi. Please note the completely different death dates (1921 vs 1950). This is about Bibi Khanum mother of Muhammad al-Milani. I also said this in the deletion reason. Yes, Bibi Khanum is a generic term of respect for women so results will come up for other people who are clearly not this person. Zaynab1418 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. Vexations (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator, subject of article is not even mentioned in the references listed; what little information is included in the stub is not verifiable; and notability is not established. We are not doing anyone any favors by keeping a stub using a (common) honorific name and attributing it to a single non-notable person; it's also unreliable information which Wikipedia should not be perpetuating. Based on a quick search of Archive.org, it would seem there could even be a stronger argument for redirecting this page to Bibi-Khanym Mosque. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March of Empires[edit]

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

Can't find much on a BEFORE. Seems like a non-notable iOS game. Previous AfD only picked up twk suitable refs. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced from the previous AFD, which only showed reliable reviews from 148apps, GameZebo and Slide to Play. 148apps was listed as situational and shouldn't tilt an AfD towards keep. If someone can find a substantial review from another reliable source I'd probably reconsider. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable independent sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, as already noted. No solid reliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not able to find significant coverage of this game by multiple independent reliable sources and I can't identify any SNG that this would pass, so I see no reason to presume the topic notable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:52, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barurunteiti Kaiorake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:28, 30 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) 18:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:36, 30 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) 23:07, 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, according to participants except the nominator, this subject is considered notable by its coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx Night Market[edit]

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

Seasonal monthly event that has only local coverage. Does not appear to be notable. Paid creation. valereee (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think. Unless I'm missing something. The COI has been declared. The article went through the AfC process. It's well cited with appropriate sources. Notability is demonstrated by the sourcing. So that just seems to leave (from the issues mentioned) that the coverage is local. I'm not sure about that aspect. Is there a policy that directs us towards rejecting only local sources? They are very reputable sources, as it seems. I'm open to being persuaded if I'm wrong, so feel free to critique this analysis. CT55555 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CT55555, when sources are only local, we consider it routine coverage. Coverage of an event only in local papers (even if those local papers are also national papers) isn't enough. This is the kind of coverage an event in Dayton, Ohio would get from its local paper. If this were a notable event, the Chicago Tribune (or some other non-local paper) would also be covering it. valereee (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times is notable, the Bronx reporter and the rest seem to be local coverage. On the whole, I think it's enough to be kept. Could use an expansion for sure. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b and @CT55555, sources don't need to be notable themselves to prove notability. They need to be reliable, independent, and at least some of them outside the local area. All of the sources for this are inside a hyperlocal area. This event is notable inside NY City but no one outside the city is even aware of it. For Wikipedia purposes, that means the event is not notable. valereee (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider the New York Times at least a national newspaper, and it has a global readership. That said, I'm still not sure if criteria you are speaking about is opinion, guidance or consensus driven. Can you point towards where local newspaper coverage doesn't count towards notability please? CT55555 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AUD discusses local-only coverage. It's difficult for sources like the NYT, which are inherently national/international. But here's the thing: even the NYT covers local stuff that isn't national/international news. Would the NYT be covering this if it was located in Dayton? No. valereee (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AUD is for companies. Is this a company? I guess maybe. I wonder, I think a market is more of a place. I think that's all up for debate. I don't know if NYT would cover this if it was in Dayton, but I'm not sure if that's a key thing here. NYT did cover it, and it is a national/global media outlet. I accept this is up for debate, and your perspective, but having considered it, I remain keep. CT55555 (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a seasonal monthly event, and the people who run the event (the company) paid to have this article created because they hope that'll be good for business. I have no objection to you staying at Keep. I'm just telling you why I think the simple fact there's coverage of a NY event in a NY paper doesn't confer notability. If the NYT was covering a Chicago event, yes. For a NY event it's routine coverage. valereee (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are five good sources and significant coverage Bearian (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian, literally every source is local. NYT, Time Out NY, Eater NY, Bronx Times-Reporter, NY1. This is the kind of coverage every local event gets in its local media. It's practically the definition of routine. I'm sorry to bludgeon, here, but not every event/person/business in NYC is notable simply because the NYT covers it, same as any other newspaper in the country covers local events/persons/businesses. valereee (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT coverage of the City, outside of elite or gentrifying neighborhoods, is so non-existent as to be a regular joke on social media. Bearian (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phase IV (2002 film)[edit]

Phase IV (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST. The TV Guide review is a dead link. The Film Creator (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pass WP:NFILM. First, because the TV Guide review is not a dead link as stated here. It's pretty much "alive" and available in the article. Second, this movie was reviewed in several (here and here, for example) websites dedicated to cover B/Z movies. This is a direct-to-video/low budget/bad movie released in the beginning of the 2000s, but being bad and cheap are not reasons for not having articles here. I really believe this article has the bare minimum to be kept here. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NEXIST, the sources have to be suitable, and I don’t think those websites you provided are suitable enough in order to keep an article in Wikipedia IMHO. If consensus disagrees by believing they are suitable, I will withdraw the nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per TV Guide and DVD Talk (which is acceptable on Wikipedia as a RS) [11] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work to User:Donaldd23. I withdraw this nomination per NEXIST since there are reviews from TV Guide and DVD Talk that exist. The Film Creator (talk) 20:30, 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 redirect to Taku Kitazaki. ✗plicit 03:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tatoeba Konna Love Song[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I tried to improve the article some time ago, but all I could find were primary sources and no useful secondary sources. - Xexerss (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:03, 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 redirect to Ikki Kajiwara. ✗plicit 03:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Superstar Retsuden[edit]

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

The article only has one source and there is no evidence of notability. - Xexerss (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic entity (DC Comics)[edit]

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

Inadequate sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. A search does not reveal any meaningful coverage other than WP:PLOT summaries which are WP:NOT sufficient for an encyclopedic article. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for odd reasons to do with the number of books written about the respective universes and Marveks cosmic characters often being tied to some big personalities that work there I suspect that one might be a lot easier to source. Artw (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Artw: Could you clarify your point here? Also, wouldn't BD2412's proposal violate WP:SYNTH? Either way, we will need specific reliable, secondary sources that provide significant commentary (not just plot summary) about Marvel or DC cosmic entities, or cosmic entities in general fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • just that the way forwards on that article is much clearer than the way forwards on this one due to the existence of Marvel: The Untold Story et al. And I guess that combining them might not be too helpful as you’d have a bunch of unsourced material on one subject and sourced material on another - probably better to just try and source the two of them independently and then think about if any kind of merge makes sense. Artw (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaundryPizza03 and Artw: it would be WP:SYNTH if there were no source discussing cosmic entities across different fictional universes, but here is Alan Kistler, "Censorship warped how DC and Marvel dealt with Heaven, Hell, and Jesus", Polygon (April 12, 2020), describing how cosmic entities throughout the comic book franchises were developed in response to rules established by the Comics Code Authority prohibiting direct mention of God (and comparable religious figures). BD2412 T 00:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article looks like possible WP:OR to me. I couldn't find any good quality sources on this subject. I don't think the Polygon source really helps much. Please ping me if good quality sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs). This article is unsourced and does not even prove that this is a coherent topic, and neither does the Polygon piece. I notice, for example, that Bat-Mite (a character who uses the fifth dimension to do annoying pranks) is completely different from Starro (a giant, starfish-like alien conqueror). Seeing that the lone source at Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics) has a similar problem, I will open a separate AfD shortly if nobody objects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard-to-define concept that fails WP:OR and WP:GNG. Entity or being, btw? (https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Cosmic_Beings). Anyway, that kind of stuff belongs on fanwikis, unless significance outside the fictional universe can be shown, which does not appear to be the case here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No valid reliable sources that even concretely define the concept, which makes the whole list largely WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a perfectly valid list article, aids in navigation, links to related articles. WP:LISTPURP. Category:DC Comics cosmic entities exist. Anything that shouldn't be on the list or that doesn't have an article linked to, can be removed through normal editing procedures. Dream Focus 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 18:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As fancruft that fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a topic that doesn't meet the WP:GNG, due to a lack of reliable independent sources. This appears to be WP:OR and the idea of a "Cosmic entity" might be a fan invention. The merge proposal is taken in good faith, but it would make the WP:OR worse as we would be drawing original comparisons that haven't been made by independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of reliable secondary SIGCOV. LISTN is a failure, but even treating it as a non-list, it's a GNG failure. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dronebogus (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list is a long piece of original research and none of the content is sourced. I'm also not able to find WP:SIGCOV of this topic, so it's neither notable nor in line with WP:NOT. I don't see a natural redirect target, so I think that deletion is probably the best way to go. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:54, 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 no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there are several somewhat weak arguments for keeping the article, but a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and some reasonable grounds to expect that additional work can be done to improve the article. There is no reason to expect that further extending discussion here will yield further clarity. BD2412 T 06:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazaqat[edit]

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

aside from the TNIE review, there is nothing else significant in terms of sources about the author or the book. Du Beat is a student paper and is pretty insignificant, Zee News doesn't even have a byline and the rest are utterly unreliable. Also worth noting this book was included along with a few sources in the AFD'd Harsh Agarwal, which was also found to be non-notable PRAXIDICAE💕 21:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NBOOKS says that book should be subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Source 1 [12] is by Zee News and has a byline by Aparna Mudi (journalist byline). I think nominator missed seeing it. The review is completely about book and discusses the book. Some excerpt from the book is already present in the current draft. There is so much more too. Like Good women oriented thrillers are difficult to come by, and `Nazaqat` is one of the few that has the capability to make the mark. Source 2 Metro India [13] written by Sankalpita Singh (journalist byline) is a full non-trivial discussion on the book. Also there is Lucknow Tribue article by Lucknow Tribune Team along with a complete article in New Indian Express taken by Svetlana Lasrado. The book is completely notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. Ts7852 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ts7852, the mobile version brings a different name but that's a different issue. Aparna Mudi] is a lifestyle blogger and a freelance writer with a degree in fashion-design. I don't fathom how do I count her article about the book as a journalistic one. Infact, I don't personally regard any Zee News related sources as reliable. New Indian Express is a legit reliable source, and I am not making any comments right now, as I need to go through other sources as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, Aafi and sharing Aparna's profile. Addendum to what I said, I found her Linked in profile [14] where she lists that she worked as an entertainment and lifestyle journalist at Zee from July 2013 to July 2015. The review date is July 2014. So this was written when she was employed as a journalist at Zee :) Also, many writers/bloggers/journalists freelance for different publications. Aparna seems to be writing in several other reputed publications like India Today and The Wire (India) that only makes the position of this source stronger. The content of the review is solid. I also see two discussions about the reliability of Zee News, both of them considering it reliable [15], [16]. Ts7852 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be significant. Being covered by journalists or in house teams by a northern newspaper (Lucknow Tribune), two southern newspapers (TNIE and The Metro) and one national news organisation (Zeenews). DU Beat and Friedeye is definitely garbage and should be removed. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TNIE is actually an interview, so it doesn't count. Even if we set aside the reliability question, Metro India is actually republished from bookgeeks, a blog which solicits books for reviews. Lucknow Tribune, again of questionable reliability, is also an interview, masked as a puff profile of the author. It only includes a blurb and makes no attempt at any sort of review. This leaves us with the single zeenews.india.com review and one review isn't enough for NBOOK. Hemantha (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t see WP:NBOOKS discarding interviews anywhere or saying that interviews can’t be used. Policy says non-trivial sources independent of the book itself, which TINE interview is. TINE also refers it to as ‘a carefully woven story’, says that ‘the book does not just lend a voice to Naazani, who narrates the story of millions of young girls who are driven to prostitution for myriad reasons.’ The Metro India is a proper review with a byline. I tried to read more but I didn’t find any policy that says if a journalist publishes their material at two platforms, it loses the value it carries. If the same review was published at two platforms with two different author names, then it was trouble because it (would have) meant that the author supplied readymade content to multiple people who published it. This is written independently. All publications solicit book for reviews (again, no policy that says any review written because the publication solicits books is null and void). I can’t think of anyone who goes to a book store and says, ‘This is the one I am going to review today’. Publications get a flood of books to review and they pick. Don’t know about Lucknow Tribune a lot, but I think we are too quick to dismiss a local print paper. There are two more coverages that I see on the same page looks legit too. Ts7852 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:BOOKCRIT, This excludes ... publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties ... speak about the book. What is an interview if not that?
    A blog article republished in a publication of unknown reliability in a "lounge" back page isn't reliable by any measure. There is nothing to suggest the author is a journalist. Hemantha (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right about TINE according to what you have cited. I am wrong. It was oversight on my part. I still would disagree on the other part. Ts7852 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Metro review is credible. The same page of newspaper also critiques Gulaab Gang, a major film of that time. Also, having two full length reviews is WP:NFILM policy and not WP:NBOOKS policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read NBOOKS? Let me highlight the relevant part - the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works. The things that appear in "leisure" sections of much more reputed papers sometimes aren't credible; it takes much more than a simple statement to show why the "Metro Lounge" page is. Hemantha (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
from what I understand, reliability is linked with fact checking and scrutiny. A source could be less reliable than other but it doesn’t mean it’s not reliable at all. Unknown reliability doesn’t mean no reliability. Do we have evidence to believe that this isn’t a reliable source? And it’s a book review, something you would read in leisure. So leisure page seems justified. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is interesting. I thought more about this with some digging. There is clarity on the acceptability of Znews as a source. For The Lucknow Tribune publication, I located some other old newspaper that are available at wayback machine to review what kind of news they published [17], [18]. The writing and pieces give a sense that there is editorial control and this is a reliable source. The specific source in question talks about the book and author in good detail and is far more than a trivial mention, making it a good source to contribute to notability. The Metro, I was not able to find other past online versions but looking at more material that is part of the source that’s included here, I see a good deal of original critique of various media at that point of time including Bangaru Kodipetta, Queen (2013 film), 300: Rise of an Empire, again indicating good editorial oversight at the publication. Even if the book was solicited, the review is written independently. This in totality, passes WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I restructured the article. The plot and author section could be expanded. The handful of brief reviews seem to just barely pass notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:58, 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 redirect to Spawn (character). Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Necroplasm[edit]

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

A search did not reveal any significant coverage as defined in the WP:GNG, which is needed to create a WP:VERIFIABLE article that is WP:NOT just an editor's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Article does not meet most of our key policies and guidelines. Jontesta (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KRMS-LD[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Fails notability WP:GNG. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Harris-Till[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Most coverage is routine mentions of his unsuccessful candidacy. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darkforce[edit]

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

A search revealed no meaningful coverage to support this article, as required by the WP:GNG. Article is entirely WP:OR, with scant sources that do not meet Wikipedia's minimums. Jontesta (talk) 16:10, 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 redirect to List of collectible card games. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Collectible Card Game[edit]

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

Deprodded with suggestion to merge, but the article is too short and unsourced for any content to be worth merging. This does not seem to be a notable game, as I was unable to find sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Faso[edit]

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

Previous AFD in 2020 closed as "no consensus". Only source is a review of Godspell where he is mentioned in passing. Most of his roles are "additional voices" or background characters, with a short-lived game show being his only major recurring role. I created this article a billion years ago with hopes of growing it, but it just never happened. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hoffman (hacker)[edit]

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

This guy did one relatively minor thing once. This obviously doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gtag10 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Illinois[edit]

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

Appears to be a rail spot that failed to disappear from the topos when the rail line did. No signs of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was a hard one to search for, both for the obvious reason and because of some early Bureau County residents named Lovejoy, but I didn't turn up anything in either a newspaper search or an old history of Bureau County. Without any clear evidence that this place was a community, I think we have to assume it's not worth keeping. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unable to locate sources to support a settlement here. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:03, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Jordan. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a catalogue listing of something is not the substantial, reliable source coverage of a topic with analysis we need to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC Monday Night Movie[edit]

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

As a programming block and not a show in its own right, I was only able to verify that it exists. Every hit on ProQuest was either a TV Guide listing or a passing mention in the form of "ABC is going to show ____ on ABC Monday Night Movie tonight". No WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:12, 30 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?) 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, sources only mention the show in television lisitngs, I don't even think it was a "program" per se, just a bumper they stuck on before whatever movie they played that week. Oaktree b (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their prime film block was The ABC Sunday Night Movie, never this one; this usually only aired to carry the second part of a long film or two-night event, when the midseason schedule bombed en masse, or after 1996 to get people to the Disney film premiering on Wednesday or Friday. Zero-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 20:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Hawaii. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Hawaii. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Hawaii. I believe that this one is different from all the others, given that there is a set historical period during which Hawaii issued postage stamps as an independent country, and the number of people appearing on these is relatively small, and is known. I expect that sources can be found on this, and the number of entries can not grow in the future unless Hawaii ceases to be part of the United States. However, given the small number, a separate list article is hardly needed. BD2412 T 21:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Hawaii, although I am not sure that is the best name for an article on the actual entity and time covered. We should only merge content that can be backed with reliable sources, not just merge everything. The list itself is in general trivial unless we can back every entry and find multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject of people on postage stamps as a dinstinct group. The best reliable source discussing the matter I have seen to date mixed people and places into one non-list discussion on the matter, so it is really an uphill battle to show people as a group and even a focus on reliable sources on stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me as if Johnpacklambert think that stamps are uninteresting and "trivia". Fair enough; but please accept that other people might find this more interesting. We can't delete all those things uninteresting to ourselves. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has existed since 14 March 2003. That was about when Wikipedia has 100,000 articles. It has lasted over 19 years. Yet it has no sources. It is a list with links, but no explanation of who these people are, so we cannot easily be sure the right people are linked, and the number of redlinks makes you wonder how many more were redlinks when first linked and thus gives no confidence anyone has ever reviewed these links for accuracy. Even if they did, with no sources, how would they know how to evaluate accuracy. This list is of a subject that has not changed in over 19 years, yet it still may only be right through 1969 (although how do we know even that with no sources). An article like this should not possibly be outdated, when there was no possible change since before it was created, yet somehow it is. Which is a sign this is a trivial subject that having an article on is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Thus, these lists are more reliable and useful to an encyclopedia than List of Czech women writers and other totally unsourced lists that are all over wp. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other stuff exists is not a good argument to keep an article at hand. I do not think we should have an unsourced list of Czech women writers, but at least we will agree that being a writer is a notable trait for most people (and if their writing was not defining, they should not be on the list). Also that list is limited to those who we have articles for, these people on stamp lists are not (some of them come close to having half their entrires lacking articles).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because "People on the postage stamps of Czechoslovakia" does not appear to meet WP:NLIST (at least, can't find any evidence of this); and additionally because this would be a WP:BADIDEA as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:16, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Kuwait. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when this article was created 12 years ago it was already 6 years out of date. That is a strong sign that it is a trivial subject. One catalog listing something does not show it is a topic that has recieved enough reliable source coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the United Arab Emirates[edit]

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Arab Emirates. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Wikia. Not everything that one can create a list on is justified in creating a list of. We need multiple reliable sources that treate the subject with significant coverage and indepth. That someone once published a catalog that listed something is not enough to justify an article on it. I am sure I can also find catalog entries that tell me which animals have been portrayed on stamps by which country, but that would not justify a list of that. To preserve these articles we would need reliable sources that show that people being portrayed on postage stamps is a topic that has received significant indepth coverage, and that has not been shown. We would need it for each country on which we had a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 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 23:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philippines. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a list of trivia. Such as telling us every issue that contained a picture of a current monarch over the Philippines. Other stamps are issued for extremely trivial reasons. There are no sources on the article, and after sitting on Wikipedia this long it is unlikely there will ever be. Wikipedia is not Wikia. We do not mass copy catalogs, let alone do original reseach, both of which will be required to create an article with any substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few of this statements that should be questioned. Even if there might be stamps that are issued for trivial reasons, that is not the overall impression of stamp policies. If John has any qualified knowledge taht philippine stamps are «issued for trivial reasons» he should back up this statement with sources. To the statement that Wikipedia «do not mass copy catalogs», I’m sure John would be surprised to learn that Wikipedia has articles like List of butterflies of West Bengal and List of Olympic medalists in water polo (women). Bw Orland (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do keep this article, we need reliable sources. We also need to sort it by year. That is the only way to approach it in a way that has historical value. It also would help emphasize what is more trivial or less trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. In the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands and the sources added in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands it is clearly indicated that stamp designs and stamp policies play a significant role in many nations. It is by all means possible to make the lists sortable, to go by alphabet or year. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence? What specific source can you cite that supports your bald assertion in general? What specific source tells us this is the way the Philippines creates postage stamps? Keep in mind this article still has 0 sources, and you have proffered 0 sources that tell us anything at all about the decisions on the part of the Philippines to create stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and France. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article dates to 9 March, 2003. That was a time when we allowed absolute druk in Wikipedia. We now require multiple reliable sources giving a list topic coverage as a group to justify an article. We have no sources and the article has stood for over 19 years. Articles should not stand for 19 days without sourced, let alone 19 years. Actually every article should have at least one source from its birth, and a list article needs to have sources justifing every point on the list from when it starts. Wikipedia is not Wikia, we should not have let this article be created, but to be fair in 2003 Wikipedia was a small website with little oversight, basically no concept of notability, and was being driven 50 ways be cruft creators, So we were getting articles going into trivial minutia, and hardly an encyclopedia. We have since limited trivial minutia diving in many respects, here is another place we need to do so. There have been way too many stamps for listing everything that has ever been pictured on stamps, and there is not sourcing that justified the notion that every stamp that ever showed a person is a notable enough occurance to justify in a list. I suspect for example there are some people who got on a stamp the same way that Jean Baptiste Charbonneu got on a US coin, not as the main subject but incidentally to the main subject. Charbonneu is on a US coin, because he is depicted as being held by his mother, Madam Charboneau, otherwise know as Sacagawea or Sacajawea, not because anyone actually considered him when they were creating the coin. Actually there is a stamp "leaving Sacajawea and Charbonneu" (do not get me started on the odd differing referals to husband and wife), that pictues either Lewis or Clark holding Jean Baptist as a child. Other Sacagawea stamps we see she has the thing on her back to hold the baby, but we do not actually technically see the baby because of the angle is looking directly at us. There are way too many stamps, picturing way too many things, for a list that seeks to list every person who ever appear on a stamp to make any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still no sources. Without sources there is no evidence at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the evidence tells us no such thing. A few entries lack articles at all, and Marilyn Monroe is evidently here because she was "on a work of Andy Warhol", so it appears the focus is on Warhol not Monroe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. And yes, the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country. Turgidson (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has 0 sources still. A stamp catalog lists every stamp ever. Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate catalog, so just because information can be found in a catalog does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such thing as an "instrinsically noteworthy subject"; and the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country, even if it were true; is entirely irrelevant to the question here, which is "does this topic meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to state the current situation. There are still no sources. Articles must be built on sources. The way these articles actually function, it would be of about the same worth if we created categories. In fact, if this was really something that was "intrinsically notable" we would create a category. The problem is that the category would run afoul of the over cat by award criteria for the same reason that we do not need these list articles. Many people appear on stamps for trivial reasons. Others appear on stamps for countries they have no define connection to. This would lead to category clutter. Some countries have issued stamps that show a group picture of some people doing something that the country feels has some importance or will sell more stamps. Even if the pictured event may be notable or result in something notable it does not follow everyone in the picture is notable and the country is not even honoring them. There have evidently been cases where the wrong person was pictured on a stamp. This is trivia that belongs in Wikia not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orland. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article still has no sources. On what actual grounds would we keep it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 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 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Finland. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list dates to 8 March 2003. That may be the same day the alos unsourced France list comes from. There are way too many postage stamps to make a comprehensive list worth having. People do not become notable for being put on postage stamps, either they are notable for other things, or remain unnotable even though they are on a stamp. Jean Baptiste Charbonneau is notable, but the reasons why have no relation to his appearing on a stamp, which is actually just because his parents were notable and part of a notable event, and he was there as a child, but his notability comes from events later in life, that are ignored by the stamp makers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. No one gets notability from beeing on a stamp; but stamps indicate the role of a person in their society. That is why Fridtjof Nansen is the most frequent person on norwegian stamps, apart from royals. The discussion that Johnpacklambert opens is interesting, and is already taken care of in these lists. People like this locomotive driver is an anonymous representative of his profession, and is thus not listed in List of people on the postage stamps of Norway; because there is a difference. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article still has no sources at all. Articles like this need sources. On what ground do we limit the scope of these articles when we have no sources. Without sources this amounts to original research, and us imposing our own non-reliable source limitations on these lists. Your statement actually I believe makes the argument to delete this article stronger. Also if no one gets notability for being on a stamp, than you admit these lists are pure trivia and we should not have them. If some people who appear on stamps are not worth including, on what grounds do we have the lists at all. List articles need to be backed by reliable sources, and these are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:25, 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. ✗plicit 23:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Honduras. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (This vote of course is meaningless since the decision to delete has already been made). Book indexes and Wikipedia lists are both very similar. They provide quick ways to search for information in a large "collection". No-one would ever dare to remove an index section from a non-fiction work. The work would become almost useless and impossible to search. Wikipedia lists could provide the same function. The issue of "notability" has been raised. Are lists "NOTABLE"? Probably not. Are lists "USEFUL"? Highly.

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

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

Thank you to all of the stamp collectors who built the lists over the years (although you may never see my thanks!!!). I had enough notice that I was able to take copies of many of the files for my personal use. I am saddened that so much effort is being destroyed. Good bye Bill Blampied (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request to discuss this situation to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philately nearly three weeks ago, with no response whatsoever. It's an unfortunate reality of WP that a small group of determined editors can override the preferences of a larger group of more casual participants. (A couple of these lists came up for AfD years ago, and had plenty of votes to keep at the time, but most of those users are now gone I think.) Stan (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a movement away from making too many lists of what amounts to trivia on Wikipedia. We used to have lists of state leaders for every year dating back centuries. We abandoned that at one point. Those lists at least had some sources and were regularly updated, and clearly being a state leader is notable, while being on a postage stamp does not make one notable, and some people are on postage stamps in ways that it is trivial and incidental, being prime minister or president of a place is centrally defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia lists are not a book index. Lists need to be backed by reliable sources that show that the topic as a group is worth noting. There are no sources backing this article. Beyond this, the only way to make this article have any encyclopedic value is to list this by year. Wikipedia is not Wikia, just because a few focused editors can churn out unsourced drivel on a subject does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not the place to endlessly list cruft. There is a notability requirment, and comprehensive lists of everyone who was ever pictured on a nation's postage stamps do not pass the notability test. There are no sources presented that cover this topic as a group. Wikipedia does not do original research, so just because you can group together some things because of a shared trait you feel matters does not mean we should create an article on it. We need reliable sources that treat the combined subjects as a group. I challenge anyone to present an article anywhere that sees these people as a group sharing being on Honduran postage stamps as even a trait that makes sense to group them. This is a list of trivia and does not belong on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia was a much different place in 2003. We have since started having things like notability requirements, and notability requirements mean that every minutia that hobbyist find interesting is not covered. Wikia is a place where you can create unlimited lists of minutia with no need to source it reliably. Wikipedia seeks to be a reasonably accurate encyclopedia, that goal is defeated by having lists that sit for 19 years with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To have an article, it needs to be shown to be notable. Cruft is a reference to overly specific articles on topics that do not recieve adequate coverage in reliable sources. The main use of the term was for articles on points in fictional works that were never covered reliably in a broad perspective. In this case, the point is that the exact pcitures on postage stamps are of interest to stamp collectors, but no one has shown that the exact pictures on postage stamps are broadly historically notable or worth cataloging. No one has argued why having these lists with no analysis is needed. What we need is sourced analysis of broad trends in who is pictured on postage stamps in articles like Postage stamps and postal history of Honduras, broad trend analysis from reliable sources. To show a topic is notable it needs to have recieved significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are secondary and indepdent of the topic and of each other. Just because a catalog has a list does not mean copying the list into Wikipedia is justified. We need those reliable sources. Notability is not a vague topic, it is a central pillar of Wikipedia, and has been since at least 2006. Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. We do not keep low quality articles that do not meet notability criteria just because they have existed for a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also contend that this list does not meet the listed perameters on acceptable lists that Wikipedia has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. This is barely a list, as it only contains nine people, not a single one of whom is sourced. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do we really believe that Cameroon has not published a stamp with a person on it for 49 years? This topic is both unsourced and trivial. Beyond this if we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Puerto Rico[edit]

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

Standard "list of people on the postage stamps of X" list. This is woefully incomplete, and while sources are added, there is still no proof of meeting WP:SALAT. The sources given prove that these people were on the stamp, but not that it's a topic worthy of attention. And since when are "gubernatorial election" and "Puerto Rican flag" people? Obligatory ping of @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Puerto Rico. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the type of list that Wikia is meant for creating. It does not fit within Wikipedia which has notability requirements for all articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This list is mainly not what it claims to be. About half the list is people who never appeared on Puerto Rican stamps. That lf oddly includes the flag of Puerto Rico. Which is not a person at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 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. The Delete rationales seem stronger here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Falkland Islands[edit]

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

Yet another boilerplate "List of people on the postage stamps of X" marathon. The lists are entirely unsourced and unmaintained. There is no evidence that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT, and the consensus to delete such lists is overwhelming. All of these were deprodded with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again -- just because you can corroborate all of these through a stamp catalog doesn't mean it's a noteworthy list on its own. Obligatory ping of @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and South America. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not meant to be a repeat of every list that can be found in any catalog anywhere. We need multiple reliable sources that give the list and also give it broader context. The only way to make this list of some value would be to organize by year issued instead of alphabetically.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all because "People on the postage stamps of [insert country X]" does not appear to meet WP:NLIST (at least, none of the lists presents any evidence whatsoever, none has been presented here, and even looking for "people on postage stamps" only seems to throw up a few pages about how at some point in the recent past the US Postal Service relaxed rules against depicting living people on them - nothing like these lists here); and additionally because this would be a WP:BADIDEA as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 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) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flexlink[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable, article largely written by paid editors. WP:BEFORE reveals a single relevant source: a two-page discussion in an obscure textbook. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  14:50, 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 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Kozatsky[edit]

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

Not notable. During the Azovstal siege, a number of fighters' photos were published in international media because the facility was not accessible to the press. This does not give them notability in my view. The two main WP:RSs are the Euronews article and the Guardian article. In the latter, he is literally mentioned only for a photo credit, ergo not WP:SIGCOV. In the former, the main subject are the photos by him – it's not, in any meaningful sense, an article about him or even his photography but a way to show the photos, I therefore would not consider it coverage of him. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 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 no consensus. Renomination at a time when there's more input might be a help, but no indication a 3rd week now will Star Mississippi 18:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love You Hamesha[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability. No coverage at all other than listings and listing type reviews on some database type websites. Film was never really released. Article has been recreated about 6 times, including after an AFD. Possibly should be salted. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against unreleased films. There is a music review and sources from Rediff and Sify. DareshMohan (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The single music review from Rediff and a 250 word "review" with no by-line on Sify (I might be wrong, but I think Sify had very little editorial oversight in those days?) isn't enough for WP:GNG. Hemantha (talk)
  • Comment The music review is from Planet Bollywood. DareshMohan (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 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 no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 03:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habiballah Esmaili[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and fails notability criteria for academics. – Ploni (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. Book of the Month History and Geography appears to have been a serious academic journal 1 that was published until 2014 2 and this book ‫تاريخ و جغرافيا: كتاب ماه‬‎. (2008). Iran: ‫سازمان چاپ و انتشارات وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامى،‬‎. confirms he was the editor in chief (to verify, just type "book of the month Habiballah Esmaili" into google books. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 8 directs us that chief editors are notable. CT55555 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted (Block evasion, no legitimate sources that mention subject's name). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birmal Hembram.[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated under Birmal Hembram, which has been salted a month ago, but I cannot see what's behind the deleted versions. I will note that the first source does not mention the person at all. If kept, the original article should be unsalted and this article moved back to its original location without the period at the end. --MuZemike 13:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander McRae Dechman[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person notable primarily as an early settler of an individual midsized city. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and requires him to get over WP:GNG on his sourceability -- but the only references present here at all are genealogical documents on FamilySearch or Find-a-Grave used solely to support his birth and death dates, which are not notability-supporting sources, and the article has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues since 2016 without ever having any new sources added to boost his notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be a subject of actual media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nova Scotia. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People who helped settle places are not default notable for such, we need reliable sources about this fact to jutify an article, ones that give signifcant coverage of them. We lack such sources in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 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 14:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vlatka Jovanović[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality and former tennis player, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for broadcasters or tennis players. When it comes to radio, the notability claim is that her show exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- but the radio content is referenced entirely to her own employers rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in third-party sources. And when it comes to tennis, there's a claim here that might possibly satisfy WP:NTENNIS (I'm admittedly not knowledgeable enough about tennis to know if it does or not) if it were sourced properly, but is still cited exclusively to deadlinked primary source directories rather than any evidence of GNG-worthy media coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from actually having to have any reliable source coverage in real media. Even if a person has a plausible potential notability claim, they still have to have reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 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 13:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrchojedy[edit]

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

Insignificant village, fails WP:GEOLAND#2. I suggest to rewrite as redirect to the municipality of Samopše, which includes this village. FromCzech (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Samopše and Mrchojedy were presumably separate legal entities at some point, correct? If the dates on Czech wiki are to be believed, both villages were founded near the start of the 14th century. I think there is a potentially long history where they were considered legally distinct villages, which would satisfy WP:GEOLAND. What sources could we find that would establish this? Mbdfar (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Czech Republic is very fragmented into small municipalities and further fragmentation is unjustified. Basically every village was a separate legal entity at some point of the history, every village has some year of the first written mention, but that does not make them significant enough to separate them from a municipality. Most of these small villages share their destiny and owners with the closest larger settlement, so their history can be easily merged with the history of the municipality. As far as Mrchojedy is concerned, I have no idea about the Middle Ages, but after the revolution in 1848 it was never a separate legal entity and it is permanently connected with Samopše.
    In the terms of the Czech Republic, there are only rare examples when villages have their own page and are not a municipality. For example in Kutná Hora District, there is about 200 villages, but only two of them (Mrchojedy and Vraník) have separate pages from the municipalities, most likely only because they appeared in Kingdom Come: Deliverance, and that is no reason to keep them. FromCzech (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't WP:NTEMP apply if the villages were historically legally distinct? Mbdfar (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why not just boldly merge into Samopše, which seems to be what the nom wants to happen anyway? Jdcooper (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement separate from Samopše (see its sign), even if it is within the municipality, so per WP:GEOLAND it is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has its own population so I think it satisfies GEOLAND#1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and NTEMP should apply regardless. Mbdfar (talk)
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND #1, as it is legally recognized place (see [32]). Also covered by multiple independent reliable sources - for example in Zavadil, Antonín Josef (2000). Kutnohorsko slovem i obrazem. Díl druhý, část 2, Uhlířskojanovicko. Sešit B, Kopaniny - Samopše (Vyd. 2 ed.). Kutná Hora: Kuttna. ISBN 80-86406-18-0. or in Otto's encyclopedia (17th volume). Jklamo (talk) 08:58, 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 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Amélia of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a non-notable living person. DrKay (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete We have consistently deleted articles on pretender nobility when they are not notable in their own rights. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one-sentence article is completely unsourced, and a high percentage of it is devoted to reciting the subject's numerous middle names. The fact that we don't have articles about either of her parents makes this article an orphan (in Wikipedia terms). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED.Agricolae (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She was born about 100 years after the house was deposed from power. This is a very extreme case of deposed monarchycruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page creator has been blocked for block evasion. Probably could be speedied. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my usual standards for nobility. She's not notorious. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In one single day DrKay removed three-quarters of the content of the page, then renamed the page in such a way that it is not possible to see the removed content, and then nominated the page for deletion. That seems entirely unfair to me. Could we see the original page and make a judgement based on that? Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not permit users to copy from elsewhere without attribution. This is directly contrary to the copyright policy, as was fully explained.[33] The claim that the content was deleted before the page move is entirely false. If you wish to see the original content, you may do so by visiting the website owned and controlled by the sock master who created the page. Naturally, that website is entirely unsourced and only consists of his own delusional fantasies. DrKay (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, the original content came from this page on Royalpedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandie Knight[edit]

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

A surprisingly long-lived vanity article for a writer (and television executive?) whose main claim to fame seems to be obscure self-published works (see for instance Hollywood under the Covers, published by "Vegas Revolutions, LLC", a defunct company headed by none other than... Brandie Knight, or, amusingly, Self-Publish Like a Pro), and a tangential link to Tommy Chong.

All the existing references belong to blogs and recondite trade publications or fall under WP:PRSOURCE, and the claims of working on various Hollywood projects are totally unsourced. She has received no independent coverage and fails WP:AUTHOR by every possible metric. MasqueDesRonces (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J.W. Buckley[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for biographies. I cant find any sources about this person on google search. BloatedBun (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need sources about the person, not just indications they have published things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Seems a bit braggy/promotional as well. IrishOsita (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:04, 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 11:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of New South Wales Rural Fire Service brigades[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of New South Wales Rural Fire Service brigades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as none of the brigades are notable on their own. This is just a collection of outdated website links. Since its nomination in 2015 it has essentially been expanded to include a whole heap of poorly sourced fancruft involving numbers of types of appliances and firefighting equipment in each. Ajf773 (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fancruft is another way to explaining that the article's content is unencyclopedic, the nomination is based on the policy NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article seems to be sourced largely to sources which are non-independent (i.e. the Rural Fire Service's own websites) and out of date (archived more than a decade ago, which is not appropriate for reporting the equipment owned by each brigade). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 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 no consensus. There doesn't seem to be an agreement on whether this article should be improved, or deleted. Several !votes on both the "keep" and "delete" sides are somewhat lacking, and discussion is getting heated, with some name calling going on, so I am going to nip this in the bud now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced since 2003, abandoned since 2010, incomplete even for the years supposedly covered (e.g. 1937, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother). Fram (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all these "list of people on the postage stamps of X" deletion discussions, no one has stepped forth to prove why this is a topic worth covering. While they can be sourced to a stamp catalogue, that doesn't mean they should be if there is no proof of the underlying topic's notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists needn't be complete. Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE. gidonb (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list fails WP:LISTN as a topic without reliable sources about the group (the info is simply extracted from stamp catalogues which are not grouped by or interested in the list topic as such). From the same source, one could just as well make lists about all Nigerian stamps with value X, all square Nigerian stamps, all Nigerian stamps issued in December, ... The additional comments about the list being incomplete and so on just show that no one in all these years has even attempted to make this list worthwhile, and that the readers aren't interested either (which were arguments made in feeble attempts to keep similar lists at AfD, "but its interesting to our readers" and so on). And of course "no deadline" works both ways, there is no deadline to have all article titles blue, even if the actual article is hugely disappointing. Much better to not have an article than to have a very poor one for 15+ years. But the basic deletion reason is WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lists need to be complete, period. If we post incomplete lists on Wikipedia, we are misleading people. They also need to be sourced, which this one is not. If something is not sourced, it fails verifiability and we delete it. That you can extract this information from stamp catalogs does not show it is notable. Actually, do stamp catalogs list this specific topic, or do they list all stamps? If Fram is right, than the catalog source is not listing this as a group and so is not usebale to show reliable sources cover this topic. Some have presented sources which mention that X person was portrayed on a stamp from Y location, but those sources do not discuss stamp portrayal as a group and so are not usebale to back up such an article. Also, in general lists on Wikipedia need to only lists those we have articles on. There are people on this list who lack articles, and it is possible to create so many stamps, or to put so many people on one stamp, that appearing on a stamp is not the sort of thing we need comprehensive lists of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Thus, these lists are more reliable and useful to an encyclopedia than List of faculty and alumni from the University of Nigeria and other totally unsourced lists that are all over wp.
    Ten Pound Hammer goes on saying that no one has stepped forth, while the truth is that the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands and the sources added in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands clearly indicates that stamp designs and stamp policies play a significant role in many nations. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence, there are no sources. Beyond that your claim is absolutely false. Go look at List of people on the postage stamps of Laos. How were John Quincy Adams, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor or Ferdinand Megellan among others important in any way to Laos? In Colombia they had a stamp connected with the society of engineers, where they had a group portrait of the founding. That does not mean every man crammed in that picture truly was impactful. Jean Baptiste Charbonneau may actually be important, but he gets on stamps and coins merely because his more famous mother, Sacagawea was carrying her on her back. The US postal service does children's art competitions to drive publicity and sales and depicts the child winners on stamps. That does not make those children important. In some cases the depicted person is so important to the country that secondary sources use a title held by multiple people instead of a personal name because that person is so foreign to the country and society that local srampmakers do not know the difference. There are all sorts of reasons people get on stamps, and many in no way indicate the person has any connection to the country. In others the person is not notable. Wikipedia is not a place for massive lists of non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    John. You should not judge this particular list based own your feelings about how the government of Laos have chosen to form their stamp editing policy. Nor Colombia. But let's take a look at Laos: As for Magellan, he appeared as part of a series of naval explorers. The U.S. presidents seem to have been a tribute to the 1976 US bicentenary; se here and here. These presidents were as such not individually "important to the history and society of their country"; I'll give you that. But many countries issued US-related stamps in 1976, as greetings. Not own history, rather foreign politics. But even that reflects stamps as a expression of the society. Bw Orland (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orland. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orland. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:20, 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced, very short list, which isn't even complete for the years it covers (e.g. Churchill 1966 or Princess Anne 1973 are missing). With 18 pageviews in the last 90 days, again one of these lists with no interest from either editors or readers. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Caribbean. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all these "list of people on the postage stamps of X" deletion discussions, no one has stepped forth to prove why this is a topic worth covering. While they can be sourced to a stamp catalogue, that doesn't mean they should be if there is no proof of the underlying topic's notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no sources. To justify an article like this we would need 1-reliable sources and 2- to reorganize it by year, and then to have sources that show that the fact that the particular person was on a stamp of Bermuda in that year is historically important enough to mention in an encyclopedia. 2 of these people we do not even have article on. Many of them have very incidental connections to Bermuda.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced (one source doesn't work and doesn't seem like a reliable source anyway), incomplete (e.g. has a stamp from 2001, but misses the Elias Abu Chabake stamp from the same year), and unloved (26 pageviews over the last 90 days). Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lebanon. Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all these "list of people on the postage stamps of X" deletion discussions, no one has stepped forth to prove why this is a topic worth covering. While they can be sourced to a stamp catalogue, that doesn't mean they should be if there is no proof of the underlying topic's notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one source is not reliable and does not back the article as a whole. There really is no justification for this article. It is trivial. There is a deleted picture that shows a postage stamp that had a whole crowd of people on it. It was a painting and so is unclear if all the people were known. In a few US postage stamps they were of a portrait painter, so it shows the portrait painter, and then some random portrait he painted, the subject of which is not particularly notable. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscrminate listing of everything, and this includes non-notable people who showed up on postage stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. I am not impressed by the rhetorics used by Ten Pound Hammer. He claims that no one has stepped forth, while the truth is that the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands and the sources added in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands clearly indicates that stamp designs and stamp policies play a significant role in many nations. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Even the 1960s part, which looks filled, is very incomplete (e.g. the long series of Mexico 68 gold medal winners is lacking, and the many people on airmail stamps from the period). Largely abandoned since its creation in 2007, except some minor additions in 2013. Not of interest to our readers either, judging from the pageviews. Fram (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Africa. Fram (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all these "list of people on the postage stamps of X" deletion discussions, no one has stepped forth to prove why this is a topic worth covering. While they can be sourced to a stamp catalogue, that doesn't mean they should be if there is no proof of the underlying topic's notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why has Chad not put any person on their postage stamps for 39 years? Part of me doubts that is the case, and if not this inaccurate list has stood way too long. I have never seen any argument as to why these lists meet our inclusion criteria. Just because you can find a list somewhere that someone else made does not mean the list can be recreated in Wikipedia. Wikia is a good medium to recreat such lists, Wikipedia has actual notability requirements and parameters on lists that a list like this does not meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Very incomplete, abandoned, unsourced since creation in 2004, and mostly unread (some 30 pageviews in the last 90 days before the Proposed deletion). Fram (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Cambodia. Fram (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seven people is hardly a list. With all of these stupid "list of people on the postage stamps of X" discussions, not a single person has proven why this meets WP:SALAT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have no sources that demonstrate that anyone when seeing this list of people would see them as a coherent group. Being on postage stamps can be done for trivial reasons, there is no reason to supposed appearing on postage stamps default makes a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fram - The subject of this article is not important enough to warrant its own article. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 03:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Incomplete (no idea which years it supposedly covers, but e.g. 1980 stamps are missing), abandoned, unsourced since creation in 2015, and unread (18 pageviews in the last 90 days). Fram (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Europe. Fram (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all these "list of people on the postage stamps of X" deletion discussions, no one has stepped forth to prove why this is a topic worth covering. While they can be sourced to a stamp catalogue, that doesn't mean they should be if there is no proof of the underlying topic's notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscrminate listing of everything. All these lists basically end up being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 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. but there is no clear consensus to SALT. That can be re-visited if folks find merit. @PixelMonki: please respect consensus, or you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Fosh[edit]

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

First PRODed and then, about a year ago, deleted in a first AfD for failing WP:GNG and the same reasoning still stands. A recent stunt has received some coverage and seen the page re-created. Note high SPA/IP editing. I considered just reverting to the previous redirect, but a new discussion is perhaps in order. If we decide to re-delete, WP:SALTing is recommended given the edit warring the article has seen over the previous redirect. Bondegezou (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG. Note that these articles have been written after the last AfD: [34] [35] [36] 0xDeadbeef 09:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Changed my vote; see below. 0xDeadbeef 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fosh fails WP:NPOL (see previous AfD), but [37] at least says something about Fosh and seems like a useful reference, although most of the article isn't actually about either Fosh or Omilana. I have added it to the article. However, Insider is of uncertain reliability as per WP:RSP. Your other two references are about a specific prank and don't say much about Fosh. Stories about a prank come under WP:NOTNEWS: they do not suggest enduring notability. I'm not certain Indian Express meets WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see WP:RSP: Indian Express is reliable; The Insider article is also reliable because the article is under culture. Also note that WP:NPOL explicitly states that such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. 0xDeadbeef 11:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies: I missed the Indian Express listing at RSP. Bondegezou (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So he pulled a stunt. So a few papers noted it. Great. What is required for notability is "significant coverage"--this doesn't add up to that. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But He's got over one million subscribers, and 80+ million views. If that's not notable, what then is? His videos easily pull in a million + views per upload. Making him a footnote is his arguably less notable fathers wikipage is just weird, theres far more to him than just being his fathers son. PixelMonki (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NYOUTUBE discusses the relationship between the number of subscribers and whether Wikipedians decide an article is notable. Plenty of YouTubers with more subscribers don't have articles, or have had articles deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I think there is room for improvement here and don't think salting is warranted. – Starklinson 01:52 UTC
    • After the article was deleted last time, it was changed to a redirect. The article was subsequently re-created ten times, nearly once a month on average, including by various short-lived accounts. That’s why I think, if this AfD concludes with a delete decision, I think we should SALT. Bondegezou (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The situation seems to me the same as it was last year: there isn't enough significant coverage of Fosh in reliable sources to write a decent article about him. As I raised last time, WP:NYOUTUBE tells us that in practice, editors involved in deletion debates consider that a YouTuber needs to meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT, and I don't think it's been demonstrated he meets either of them. He was also not elected mayor, so he doesn't meet WP:NPOL. In my nomination statement for the last AfD, I said that the RS material being put forward comprised routine election coverage and coverage of his YouTube hijinks, rather than coverage of Fosh himself. This remains the case for new material being put forward as potentially establishing notability, so I think the same problem applies. I don't think anything meaningful has changed, except the repeated SPA recreations which I think justify SALTing, which was something advocated by several contributors in the initial discussion last year too. Ralbegen (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting any inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Oppose SALTing. Fosh is probably WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:GNG but the stunt might merit its own article IMO. The stub does not have much content that needs to be draftified. Because Fosh could become notable in the future I do not think salting is necessary - SPAs should be dealt with individually and recreating the article in good faith should not be prevented. 0xDeadbeef 00:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First off all, there have now been added a lot of sources to back up the claims and make the article both useful, trustworthy and reliable sources. I believe him to be noteworthy enough to warrant a page of his own. His stunts regularly make headlines, not to mention his fairly large viewerbase. PixelMonki (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first 10 citations given in the article are to Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, a government database, YouTube again, a student news website, a local news website, another YouTube, a minor local news website, and a major local newspaper. I think the article has improved somewhat, but I still don't myself see material demonstrating enduring notability. His viewer base doesn't seem large enough by WP:NYOUTUBE standards (see the table at the bottom). Bondegezou (talk) 07:52, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  20:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Mama[edit]

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

Most of the sources are interviews or her articles/books. Nothing substantial to satisfy the general notability guidelines Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 06:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 06:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Faulty nomination doesn't even consider the correct notability criterion (WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, not WP:GNG). As Barbara Lee Distinguished Chair in Women's Leadership at Mills College, she passes WP:PROF#C5. As a heavily cited author in a field where this is unusual [38], she passes #C1. I'm also seeing a fair number of published academic reviews for her books but (except for [39]) as edited volumes rather than monographs they make at best a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR. In any case only one criterion is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of nominating is to get a consensus. Just so you know, I'm not trying to win here. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 07:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to question notability of a two-year-old article, add a tag to the article rather than bringing it to AfD. PamD 13:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one would clean it up if I didn't. Tags only pile up list with no improvement. Best, Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Razak Al-Hassan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Cooper (television host)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Search fails GNG, no results in books, news yields two minor travel sites. Additionally, this was created for money. Firestar464 (talk) 03:43, 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 Withdrawn by nominator Firestar464 (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Dustin[edit]

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

A quick search does not seem to indicate WP:GNG. Additionally, this was created for money. Firestar464 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukenio Kobuti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Despite improvements, I don't see an agreement that the article should be kept. ClaudineChionh if you want the article moved to user / draft space for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans Online[edit]

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

Recreation of a previously expired/deleted PRODded article. New version was created by a serial unreferenced article creator who doesn't respond to talk page messages. My prod was something like: Serves as a directory listing for a directory. I'm not seeing reliable secondary significant coverage elsewhere; brief mentions on Google Scholar and elsewhere. Further details: I prodded this one w/o realizing that it had been prodded/deleted previously. I don't recall whether I prodded the previous one (I suspect not) and I don't know whether the creator of this unsourced article created the previous one. I completed a BEFORE but didn't find anything in the significant-secondary-reliable happy place. The person who deprodded this time did it on the technicality of its having been recreated; that person noted that notability is not demonstrated; someone else removed all unsourced content. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or draftify) – AO is now "retired" but it is historically significant as the first major online news/commentary resource for the Anglican Communion. I didn't realise it didn't have a decent Wikipedia article and I'm willing to make a start on one. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as it is now is still not close to a keep for me (notability not yet demonstrated; "first major online news/commentary resource" of various religious denominations and other groups doesn't suggest Wikipedia notability; most sources just point to Anglicans Online), but I wouldn't object to a draftification if you think you can improve it or to a redirect if you can think of a better place to cover this website/directory. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current nominator actually was the editor who prodded the earlier version; both were created by the same editor. The older one only had the organisation's website as source. The current article has been stubbed as unreferenced, so interested parties are referred to the longer version in the history. I didn't see notability but I'm always willing to be persuaded. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ClaudineChionh, that's much improved. I've been thinking this one over. The main thing that speaks to potential notability seems to be the foundation in 1994, when as I recall the nonacademic web was in its infancy, search engines were very spotty, and websites consisting solely lists of links like this one were a major way of navigating. The earliest non-university-based website of which I'm aware also dates to 1994. I don't know how many of the early ones are still live. Is there much published on the history of Christian-focused websites, or similar? I don't even know if there were earlier Christian newsgroups/bulletin boards/mailing lists. I do recall my university Christian Union tried to start an online Bible -- I learned to type by typing in Matthew -- but got made to take it down over copyright. That would have been significantly earlier than 1994, probably 1990 or 1991, back in the days when even from a UK university you could only send e-mail to the States overnight. I think what's needed is sources, and preferably not all from the Anglican Journal. There's a brief description in the New Statesman (Andrew Brown. "The Church ignorant INTERNET." New Statesman, 128, no. 4464, 29 Nov. 1999, p. 75) and a mention in The Times ("Online devotion: the church's growing faith in the web." Times, 24 Feb. 1999, p. 11), oh, and another excellent one in The Times that I'd missed (Ruth Gledhill. Debate over rise of Synod liberals rages on Internet. Saturday, Oct. 28, 1995 The Times 65410 p10). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info, Espresso Addict. I've tried to make the creator's articles sink or swim for a few years now; maybe I should have suspected that they recreated an expired prod (and that it was one of my prods) when I saw a familiar article title, but to my knowledge they've never done that before, so I thought I was mistaken. Now we know. ~~~~DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few more solid academic as well as news references in my brief literature search on the weekend but haven't been able to read them yet (I was preoccupied with an election). I doubt I'll be able to get to them before Thursday. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. As it is right now, I'm not seeing where it meets the criteria at WP:WEBCRIT. So far, other than the obituary of one of the people involved (fine to include, but it doesn't help notability), we've got 2 citations from Anglican Journal. One of them is only a page and I'm guessing that one doesn't cover the subject in-depth. The other one is 12 pages, but it only is used in the lead for describe what the website did and who worked on it. Maybe more details from that article could be fleshed out to communicate something other than it was a directory. Two articles from the same journal only count as one source per WP:SIGCO. But if you've got more, we look forward to seeing it on Thursday or after. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an online directory, not dissimilar to the Directory of the Catholic Church in each country. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on your rationale, Whiteguru; I'm not seeing how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is relevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a directory insofar as it gives a list of dioceses, churches erected, services available at said churches, community events and community services on offer. The website does this formally for each country where the Anglican communion is established. That is the function of a directory. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but (at least my reading is that) NOTDIRECTORY doesn't say we don't include directories, rather we are not a directory (of all things that exist). So Wikipedia should not list every Anglican (or Catholic, or whatever) website that's ever existed, but there's no reason it can't include a (notable) website whose primary function was to be a directory (especially one started in 1994, when search engines didn't work and such things were key to how people navigated). We have a whole category for directories. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not relevant here, its about wikipedia not being a directory itself, you can of course post articles about notable directorys. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine consensus as to whether the improvements are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - NOTDIR doesn't apply, but GNG would. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page isn't a directory (so it passes), but it fails GNG. SWinxy (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whiteguru, you could update your deletion rationale if you see issues with notability, sourcing being primarily self-published, or some other issue to strengthen your vote. Maybe this will wrap up today/tomorrow or maybe it'll go on another week. ClaudineChionh has not updated the article or this page in some 2 weeks. Possibly got busy, but pinging. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DiamondRemley39 yes – I had very little breathing space between election business and school getting very busy. I can't see myself getting back to this before the last week of June. If that's too far away, happy to draftify or move to userspace. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closer: If it is not delete (still my vote), I think draftifying (I'm not double-voting) is the next best option. At present, the article is not much improved, but the more that ClaudineChionh has access to could help a little. It is a waste of time to keep this open another ~3 weeks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. SWinxy (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. I am not inclined to update what I said earlier. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:11, 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. per changing circumstances during the discussion. This could be called n/c, but a full reading of the discussion shifts the weight to the Keep !voters Star Mississippi 14:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of gender identities[edit]

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

Unneeded, unsourced, and misleading list that lists entries like "male" alongside numerous neologisms with zero presence in reliable sources.

There is no need for this list. Noteworthy non-binary genders are already listed at that article. Other notable terms about gender are linked in articles on gender and transgender topics and in navboxes and sidebars.

This article was WP:PRODed and endorsed by Mean as custard and TenPoundHammer, but this was removed by Kvng, pointing to the WP:DEMOLISH essay. As that is an essay, I'd rather point to WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE. Listing every neologism ever thought up for "my gender identity feels unstable" or [object]gender is an undue treatment of gender. It does not matter if the list is ever completed, it is fundamentally misguided and unneeded, with the topic being covered much better by existing articles. Crossroads -talk- 01:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This list is unsourced nonsense and probably an unencylopedic list given the lack of clear inclusion criteria. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no proof that the list is being worked on; clear WP:PUTEFFORT failure if the editor just churned out a list and gave up halfway through without even trying to source or finish it. Most of these are one-shot neologisms, and the ones that actually are reputably sourced are already in categories. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As The Drover's Wife said, there is no clear inclusion criteria. I just can't see this list being improved in a way that makes it both able to warrant a page and purposeful to readers. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 04:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no sources, mostly non-article entries, no clear inclusion criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like most lists on Wikipedia, it is incomplete, so it can be improved. A new criterion could be established whereby unless there is a blue-link or it has a ref. then it can't belong in the list. Several of the entries already meet this criterion, so it is just a matter of cleaning up. Nonetheless, it is a useful guidepost for navigating a thorny issue. And remember: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't care tuppence whether this list stays or goes, but Crossroads, your description of these terms as 'every neologism ever thought up for "my gender identity feels unstable"' could very easily be seen as offensive. It is the use of the word "unstable" that is most potentially hurtful. It implies that anyone who describes their gender using words on this list is somehow psychologically confused, doesn't know what they are, is liable to change, or has a belief in their gender that is somehow less secure or less valid than that of those of us who identify as "Male" or "Female". May I suggest you strike that bit, and concentrate on the fact that the list is very large, nevertheless incomplete, it's unlikely ever to be completed, and it's not drastically useful as it doesn't help our readers find targets at which they can find any useful information, since only three entries point to an article? At the moment, it's worse than a dictionary: it's a dictionary with no meanings. Elemimele (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without talking a lot about the specifics I would only add that while the subject could be notable, the article is in very poor shape. It shouldn't be allowed to stay in the article space until it is well developed with reliable sources. I hope that List of sexual orientations (created on the same day as this article on 22 May[41][42]) won't survive the PROD tag, otherwise, get ready to nominate it for deletion as well. TolWol56 (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deprodded this because prod is for uncontroversial deletions and the justification for deletion TenPoundHammer gave was "Unreferenced and appears to peter out half way through. . ." which I could not readily map to any WP:DEL-REASON. The rationale given by Crossroads here is more developed but I don't see a clear policy-based reason to delete this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and substantially revise, with RS required for inclusion. An initial search of GScholar includes: Culturally Responsive Teaching in Gifted Education: Building Cultural Competence and Serving Diverse Student Populations (2021, Chapter 12 includes A Brief List of Gender Identities, and in-depth discussion of related targeting/scapegoating/marginalizing/pathologizing/bullying/harassment etc., as well as additional historical gender identities); Dress, Gender, and Identity: An Inclusion of Many (2018, includes an overview of sources "for fully broadening the concept of gender" including the NYC Commission on Human Rights (2018), which includes "(1) Bi-gendered (2) Cross-dresser (3) Drag King (4) Drag Queen (5) Femme Queen (6) Female-to-Male (7) FTM (8) Gender Bender (9) Genderqueer (10) Male-to-female (11) MTF (12) Non-OP (13) HI JRA (14) Pangender (15) Transexual/ transsexual (16) Trans person (17) Woman (18) Man (19) Butch (20) Two-Spirit (21) Trans (22) Agender (23) Third sex (24) Gender Fluid (25) Non-binary transgender (26) Androgyne (27) Gender gifted (28) Gender Blender (29) Femme (30) Person of transgendered experience (31) Androgynous"); Teaching and learning guide for: Guidelines for respecting gender diversity in psychological research (2019, at 2 "Beliefs about binary gender/sex are so fundamental in Western culture that it can be quite “mind blowing” (to borrow a phrase that is often uttered by our students) to learn that gender/sex is actually a multi-dimensional spectrum", with a list of additional sources). There also appears to be scholarly attention to Facebook and its options for gender identity, but I am not able to access more than snippets via GScholar and have not yet tried the WP Library, e.g. inter alia, Transforming Gender, Sex, and Place: Gender Variant Geographies (2019, "Early in 2014, for example, Facebook announced a new list of gender identities, including 51 possible options, allowing users to select transgender, intersex, genderqueer and other …"). Per WP:NLIST, this group/set has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the existence of this list could serve a navigational purpose with the inclusion of related articles. Based on available sources, this topic appears to be too broad to be considered covered in the manner suggested by the nom, and the addition of prose as an introduction to this article could help make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An initial search of GNews includes: What you need to know about Tinder's new gender identity terms (USAToday, 2016, includes a list with some definitions and commentary), Google+ Now Lets You Define Your Gender (Advocate, 2014, "These latest updates reflect similar changes recently embraced at Facebook — which in February expanded its available list of gender identities available for users to select to more than 70 different options, depending on where users live — and online dating site OKCupid, which in November announced it would allow users to choose from a wide range of gender identities and sexual orientations."), Merriam-Webster Just Added 2 Very Important, Inclusive Words to the Dictionary (TeenVogue, 2016, "Plus, some other valuable vocab on gender and identity.") Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:No page, even notable topics are sometimes best covered in other articles. And that principle certainly applies here - a list of terms is not helpful, and once definitions are added it would mostly just duplicate the material at non-binary gender and transgender. You have since added a bunch of entries that misleadingly present terms that mean the same thing as separate genders - e.g. "trans female", "trans woman", "transgender female", and "transgender woman" are all separate when the vast majority of RS recognize and treat these terms as meaning the same. There's also marginal sources out there that just republish lists they pulled from user-generated sites like wikis, which exacerbates DUE issues, as well as sources that have no relevant expertise in the LGBT studies field (Teen Vogue, a fashion magazine, falls into that category). Crossroads -talk- 02:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am using independent and reliable sources that identify, discuss, list, and define gender identities to help address concerns raised in the nom and other !votes about this recently-created article, and I have also moved unsourced content to the article Talk page. I do not appreciate being referred to as "misleadingly" presenting terms when I am relying on independent and reliable sources to develop the list instead of original research or my own POV. I have quickly conducted a WP:BEFORE and identified multiple sources that support the notability of this list with secondary commentary and analysis. There are obviously more sources available, but I have made quick additions and revisions as a start to improving the article, which appears to have navigational, development, and informational purposes. Beccaynr (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr, thanks for your contributions here! Keep in mind that AfD is not a happy place. ~Kvng (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:HEY, I have continued to update the article to add inline citations to reliable sources and to make revisions to address a variety of concerns raised by !voters advocating deletion of this newly-created article. Per WP:NOTDUP, It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. There are many advantages of a list, including the ability to include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and it seems appropriate here to use a selection criteria based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item due to potential subjectivity or disputes related to inclusion for the topic of gender identity. There are also now a variety of wikilinks added to the article, and despite several pointing to various sections of the Non-binary gender article, this appears to serve a useful navigational purpose, and the addition of wikilinks to other articles helps show the wider variety of articles covered by this list than indicated in the nomination statement. As to more specific concerns more recently raised, none of the sources added rely on "user-generated sites like wikis", which a review of the sources can help verify, and a review of the Teen Vogue source can help show that it is more than a fashion magazine, incorporates a source with expertise in the LGBT studies field, and provides secondary commentary about the dictionary definitions highlighted in the article. This article can continue to be developed, similar to all articles, but it is now reliably-sourced and includes wikilinks, as well as a clarified inclusion criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep after improvements by Beccaynr. The "weak" is only that I think this could be better done as a navbox. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:NLIST. The grouping of "gender identities" is discussed by many reliable sources. Beccaynr has gone over and above in providing sources for the individual list entries. As they noted, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a list for this as well as other types of pages and templates. Arguments about completeness or difficulty in maintenance are not relevant here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements made by other editors during the discussion. Pinging @Crossroads:, @The Drover's Wife:, @Capsulecap:, @Ajf773:, and @TolWol56: to see if the improvements are satisfactory to them now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a different kind of problematic now: much of the unsourced nonsense has gone, but now most of this list aren't things that are "gender identities" at all. It's just a confused list of vaguely trans-related terminology, largely based on misapplying sources in a very confused way. The entries are "sourced" in the same way that having a source verifying the existence of a breed of horse would be useful as justification for its inclusion in a list of birds: not at all, because it's not sourcing the subject as being in the relevant category for the actual list. It's become a weird, probably unintentional case of incoherent WP:OR through a poor understanding of the subject/comprehension of sources. Crossroads made similar and very pertinent comments above on 1 June and I'm not sure why they were ignored by a couple of users above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed all of the unsourced material and moved unsourced entries to the Talk page. I also used independent and reliable sources that described these terms as 'gender identities', not WP:OR, to add entries to the list. Beccaynr (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with the list is as I said one of WP:DUE. There are tons of marginal sources that technically could be argued to pass RS, but have no expertise in a relevant academic field, and these can down the line be used to reliability-wash junk like lists from user-generated content sites. There's some diversity-training stuff out there like this, for example. As it is, we have stuff like textiles conference proceedings and a fashion magazine, USA Today, etc., and this problem will only get worse with time as people add entries. This is why we have trans-related terms now being classified as gender identities, and stuff like "transgender female" presented as separate from "trans woman". Crossroads -talk- 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. The list has no real inclusion criteria - it's just a list of mishmashed terms that aren't actually "gender identities" "cited" to low-quality sources that don't address the issue of "does this term actually fit within the purported subject of the list?". The "keep" !voters aren't engaging with this point: just because "gender identities" are a legitimate encyclopedic subject (in a general article sense) is not an argument for a list of every random term that is vaguely associated with the subject (but isn't an actual gender identity). It can't be cleaned up because that's precisely the basis it was created, and it's far from clear that that any inclusion criteria could be defined that wouldn't, like the present, just result in editors going 'oh here's a word that's vaguely trans-related, let's stick it in there". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I think if the sources are closely examined, it would be more clear that, e.g. a sociologist is reporting and commenting on Facebook's gender identity options, which were developed with experts in the LGBT field, USA Today is reporting on Tinder's options, which are similar to Facebook's, Teen Vogue, as noted above, is not simply a fashion magazine and is reporting on new dictionary terms and the expertise of an LGBTQ organization, the New York City Commission on Human Rights is carefully used as a source (it is also quoted by the International Textile and Apparel Association conference proceedings), etc. The recent delete !voter comments seem to focus on what they seem to consider the weakest sources, despite the strength of the sources that these independent and reliable sources rely on, and seem to ignore the other, even stronger sources in the article. Hidden text can be added to remind editors about the need for reliable sources, and page protection is available if there are repeated attempts to remove sourced content or add unsourced content. One improvement to the article that I think could help is an introductory paragraph - I just have not had the time and focus to research in the WP library and make an attempt at composing it. Beccaynr (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article consistently cites poor-quality sources as fact - including those you reference. The "New York City Commission on Human Rights" source is twenty years old and was badly inaccurate even then (as many sources of that era were). I can't think of another example where someone would try to cite the self-published opinion of Tinder or Facebook (as companies) as evidence of anything other than their opinions as companies. Why in blazes would the views of the International Textile and Apparel Association (!) be relevant to defining whether terms are gender identities or not? The bizarre article used for "xenogender" appears to be less-than-serious (and the explanation at the wikilink illustrates the completely undefined scope or definition of this list). It's just a motley collection of poor sources, and it's unsurprising that that's the basis on which we've wound up with this ill-defined mess of a list. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I actually question my addition of the 2002 date to the NYC CHR cite, because I really should pull the statute to verify the difference between the current published guidance and underlying statute, to help avoid the use of original research to claim it was "badly inaccurate even then". And the expert-informed opinions of Facebook, and the creation of lists by other social media companies, appears to be another reason why this list has navigational, informational, and development purposes - it seems clear that a list of gender identities is a valid search term, and we can offer encyclopedic content. Also, personal POV on what is or isn't "bizarre" does not appear relevant to whether or not this article should be kept, because it seems clear that reliable sources exist and this article can be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            The best you can do for this list, is a twenty-year old source of questionable veracity - it's similar to citing a Reagan administration paper on homosexuality as unlabelled fact in the present-day - and the opinions of Facebook and Tinder. (The "expert-informed" about Facebook and Tinder is an assertion of yours that's not backed up by the sources, apart from repeating the same claim in passing.) As for the article I referred to as "bizarre", it is very relevant if you're citing an apparently satirical article as to whether that should be kept. If reliable sources exist, where are they, instead of this "Facebook and Tinder gave me a list and they totally must've consulted experts; also I found this low-quality guide from 20 years ago" rubbish? It's just a motley mess of sources, which predictably has led to a mess of a list of vaguely trans-related terms that aren't necessarily gender identities at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I encouraged a close of the review the sources, and the sociologist commenting on Facebook's list discusses both the development of the list and the hostile reactions that followed after Facebook published it. Beccaynr (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            See also: Facebook expands gender options: transgender activists hail 'big advance' (Guardian, 2014, "Facebook came up with its range of terms after consulting with leading gay and transgender activists, and the company plans to continue working with them."), Facebook goes beyond ‘male’ and ‘female’ with new gender options (CNN, 2014, "Facebook said it worked with a group of leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations to come up with the new gender categories."), A Comprehensive Guide to Facebook’s New Options for Gender Identity (Time, 2014). And I have never claimed that these sources are the 'best I can do', and have instead noted that these are initial results, that delete !voters appear to be ignoring even stronger sources already added to the article, and that this article can continue to be developed. I also indicated that I likely mis-dated a source that appears to be current by relying on the date of a statute, so suggesting it is the equivalent of Reagan-era validity seems to be a red herring at best. Based on the wide availability of sources and the tenor of some of the delete !voter comments, I am also concerned about the possible lack of WP:BEFORE searches, because the burden and onus to find sources is shared in these discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic of the list is now clearly Notable and encyclopaedic. All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the first few votes seem to have been swayed by the state of the list at the time rather than its appropriateness or Notability. But WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Newimpartial: The "delete" !voters were specifically pinged and have given updated feedback about why the material needs to be deleted. Please bother to read it before dismissing clear, policy-based logic as WP:IDONTLIKEIT because you couldn't be bothered. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your comment, which I read, said This list is unsourced nonsense and probably an unencylopedic list given the lack of clear inclusion criteria. This does not apply to the current article, and in any event, AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Newimpartial: I explicitly said in the comment in which I pinged you that the "!delete" voters had given updated feedback about why the material needs to be deleted, and now apparently your response is to just to straight-up admit that you didn't bother to read any of the updated comments. Refreshing honesty, but perhaps a comment centred on "all I'm hearing" from comments he admittedly didn't read probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you want to make an updated comment, you can do that by striking your erroneous !vote rationale and replacing your own !vote with an update. The fact is that TenPoundHammer provided an appropriate !vote update and that you, rather than doing the same, opted to argue with them in reply to their !vote. Then when I call attention to the low-quality !votes that opened the AfD, you, rather than updating your !vote, choose to argue with me in reply to my !vote, making the rather bizarre claim that I ought to parse the replies to another editor's !vote in order to triangulate an updated version of yours (and of the nominator's, presumably) because you cannot be bothered to format that information clearly and in the correct place. This is a nonsense argument, which you seem unable to make without personal attacks. I suggest you let it go. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was pinged and I responded to the ping. You literally said "all I'm hearing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT" about feedback from specific people that you then admitted to not having read whatsoever. That's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact relevant to your !vote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • First of all, if you read my actual comment, I said All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT (emphasis added for the text you cut when quoting me above). That point wasn't directed at your original !vote or your subsequent comments. Both the original nom and the nominator's subsequent comment at 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC) present essentially IDONTLIKEIT rationales, and don't deal with the demonstrated Notability of the topic or the quality of the sources in a meaningful way. The additional comment, for example, dismisses admitted RS that have no expertise in a relevant academic field, as though this were relevant to the Notability or suitability of the list - we are not writing a supplement to the DSM-6, here. Also, the reason offered for doing this is essentially WP:CRYSTAL - what might happen in future if we admit non-MEDRS now to what is not a MEDRS topic.
              • Your repeared misreadings of my original and subsequent statements are tiresome. You refered to specific people that you then admitted to not having read whatsoever, which doesn't relate to anything I said, ever - I read the whole discussion as it exists each time I respond, but that doesn't oblige me to reply to all of it. You stated that I didn't bother to read any of the updated comments, but I have repeatedly pointed out that my criticism was directed at the early, unaltered votes on the AfD (and the nom) - I have in each instance clearly stated to what I am responding, I am under no obligation to WP:SATISFY you by responding to other things, and the fact, demonstrated in my previous paragraph, that you are misreading my comments that you try to quote back at me makes your complaints about my reading and your repeating your errors as "facts" seem, well, reasonably rich in irony. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List is clearly notable based on sources easily discovered by Beccaynr. The complaints about content can be addressed through improvements without deleting the list. It looks like WP:AFDISCLEANUP is already taking care of this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 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. ✗plicit 02:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Champions of the Wild[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of a secondary source, but I couldn't find anything else. Also, the "Canadian Materials" citation does not appear to be a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Strachan, Alex (2000-10-14). "Where the wild things are: Champions of the Wild trains cameras on the people probing the mystery of the untamed outdoors". Vancouver Sun. ProQuest 242662377. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Champions of the Wild has evolved into one of the longest- running documentary series to emerge from B.C.'s still fledgling indigenous film and television industry. From the moment it first aired on the Discovery Channel in 1996, the series touched a nerve with viewers with its news-driven, information-oriented take on everything from a research project dedicated to saving the Bengal tiger in India and a program to save East Africa's last surviving herds of wild elephants to West Africa's first economically self- sustaining wildlife sanctuary in Burkina Faso. The series' fourth season will kick off Monday with a profile of Vancouver Island research scientist Jim Cosgrove and his work with the giant Pacific octopus, the Moby Dick of West Coast underwater lore. The film recently won a pair of awards at two major U.S. documentary film festivals -- an auspicious beginning for the new season. The series is now seen in the U.K., Australia and in the U.S., on the American cable channel Animal Planet. In Canadian television terms, four years for a wildlife documentary series that doesn't feature David Suzuki and doesn't air on the national public broadcaster is unprecedented. Bruyere says the target now is the elusive 65 episodes -- 52 down, 13 to go -- which will allow Omni Films to float Champions on the lucrative syndication market."

    2. Antonia, KJ Dell (2019-09-19). "Champions of the Wild. TV review by KJ Dell Antonia, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30.

      The review notes: "This is classic nature programming, without any particular twists to hold young, media-savvy viewers. The narrator is omniscient, omnipresent, and uninvolved, creating a sense of detachment from the animals and the scientists. The discussions of animal behavior are always interesting, but they're no different from the norm."

    3. Gayton, Don (January–February 1999). "Champions of the wild". Canadian Geographic. Vol. 119, no. 1. p. 73. ProQuest 216045622.

      The article notes: "Wildlife shows are a staple of television. Even a cursory channel surf usually turns up one of these cheery programs, full of colourful images, a bit of gratuitous sex, and overblown narration. So it was with some trepidation that I approached this 13-video National Film Board series. These 25-minute videos, covering gorillas, grizzlies, wolves, polar bears, swift foxes, orangutans, lemurs, pandas, humpbacks, right whales, orcas, sharks and dolphins, turned out to be the class of their genre. ... The series does not avoid controversy. The grizzly program addresses habitat loss due to clear-cut logging in British Columbia's coastal rain forest. ... Champions of the Wild is a quality Canadian entry into the wildlife video genre. The series reminds us of the massive impact we have on ecosystems and the fragile position of those key; stone species at the top of each ecosystem's food web."

    4. "Finding a way through the Canadian funding jungle". Vancouver Sun. 2000-10-14. ProQuest 242661373. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Champions of the Wild has evolved to the point where a few extra dollars in financing from the Canadian Television Fund -- funded equally by the federal government and the Canadian cable industry -- is not going to make or break its existence, but money has created its share of headaches just the same. Bruyere estimates Champions of the Wild's average budget at $140,000 an instalment, as opposed to the $1 million typically lavished on an hour-long BBC nature film."

    5. Price-Stephens, Susan (May 1999). "Champions of the Wild". School Library Journal. 45 (5): 62. EBSCOhost 507627557.

      The article notes: "This stunning series, which has been shown on the Discovery Channel, introduces viewers to the people, zoologists, veterinarians, biologists, psychologists and others who have dedicated their lives to championing the causes of the featured endangered animals. We hear inspiring stories of how these conservationist came to work with their chosen animals and what the work involves. But more than this, each video provides extensive information on the animals, the natural history of their habitats, and wildlife conservation. ... More than half of the "champions" depicted are women which should help inspire young females who are interested in the sciences. The thoughtful presentation of ideas around conservation issues would be useful to stimulate group discussions."

    6. "Vancouver-made wildlife series to air on Discovery". Vancouver Sun. 1997-06-25. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A $2-million television series about Canadians working to protect wildlife around the world, produced by Vancouver's Omni Film Productions, will air this fall on the Discovery channel. The 13-episode Champions of the Wild will air Wednesday nights beginning Oct. 1 as part of Discovery's new fall lineup, announced Tuesday in Toronto. It is one of seven new Canadian series Discovery will air this fall."

    7. Simpson, Joan C. (2000-03-17). "Champions of the Wild Series". Canadian Review of Materials. Vol. 6, no. 14. Manitoba Library Association. ISSN 1201-9364. Archived from the original on 2016-03-11. Retrieved 2022-05-30.

      The review notes: "The sound quality is excellent. The varied (close-up, distant, wide angle) images are of high technical quality. In Sharks, which features Dr. Sam Gruber and Canadian photographer Tim Calver, still images are interspersed with live action. The videos are accompanied by a helpful summary of the video, pre- and post-viewing questions and three related Web sites. Any one of these videos would be an effective introduction or conclusion to a unit on endangered species. They could also be used to explore how animal behaviorists work."

    8. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Meet the ultimate animal lovers: Champions of the wild". The Globe and Mail. 2001-09-15. p. 16. ProQuest 1125616868.

        The article notes: "There seems to be no end to the number of people who dedicate their lives to the protection and preservation of wildlife. Get to know some of these special individuals as a new season of Champion Of The Wild takes you to places near and far."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the citations in the article, as well as the additional ones found by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunard found clear evidence this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:32, 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 01:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Colaco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sources found include [43] and [44], however both are at best trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a small number of trivial sources available. Insufficient coverage to deem it significant, and hence does not meet notability standards. The coverage may be appropriate to warrant the subject being mentioned in an article if someone can find one to merge it into, however not sufficient to establish notability. MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are not enough sources to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:05, 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. Redirect, if desired, can be handled as a matter of editorial process. There is no consensus for one at the moment Star Mississippi 14:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atino Baraniko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current sources are trivial and significant coverage is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete but someone is welcome to create a redirect as a matter of editorial process if they find it helpful Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaben Ioteba[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current sources are trivial and significant coverage is lacking. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:59, 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 no consensus. as to whether this can be handled editorially, and no indication further input is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination when more input might come. Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North American Association of Indian Students[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is basically puffery. A recently (2020) founded organisation that has only garnered brief mentions in local media, usually in relation to their election activism in 2020 and mostly as brief quotes from its staff. Contrary to the requirement of NORG, it has not received significant coverage in independent sources and thus does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. — kashmīrī TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious as to what user Kashmiri believes is enough references to support an organization doing work. There are ways to change the article if it is 'basically puffery', but to disregard it's 'brief mention in local media' is not fair. I am listing out articles by institutions like The New York Times, Washington Post, India Today, NPR, and many other. There is also frequent broadcast coverage of the work they do. Here are some of the coverage they have on broadcast channels: NDTV,NDTV, Asiaville, CNN News 18, NewsX, News 18. I believe that is enough for significant coverage.
    I would like to work with the user to edit the article in a way where it is not a puff piece but informative.
    New York Times, Washington Post, Hindustan Times, News 18, PIE News, Vice News, Business Wire, News Minute, The Michigan Daily, Voice of America, Scroll, Inside Higher Ed, India Today, The Indian Express, CNET, and many others that I will not waste your time with. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews with Kaushik about immigration matters are not a coverage of the organisation. Let me quote from WP:NORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. To put it succinctly, there would need to be a number of publications in reliable sources about the organisation. The listed references don't offer that – they only contain a few quotes from Kaushik plus a few video appearances of him. That's not what is meant by significant coverage of an organisation. — kashmīrī TALK 07:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I encourage other individuals to please comment on this, as I believe User Kashmiri has an inherent bias (explicitly shown from their username). From the plethora of credible and substantial coverage linked, there aren't just 'a few quotes from Kaushik.' Rather, NAAIS has been instrumental in the past few years on a variety of issues and that deserves the references and coverage they have received. Whether it was COVID relief for students of Indian origin, the Trump administration ban against students, vaccination issues, complexity for international students, fundraising for Oxygen relief within India, an umbrella organization for Indian students, and could keep on naming so many systemic issues that NAAIS has taken to become an organization with a large following + credible work. To suggest to delete and accuse of it as puffery is demeaning to the work.
    I respect the work you put in into maintaining Wikipedia, but the work that NAAIS has done is of value and importance for a growing demographic. I request others to also comment. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, Wikipedia is not there to list all entities that do "work of value and importance". Our criteria are significantly stricter, as you can read at WP:NORG. — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I tend to agree with our Kashmiri user. Bias has nothing to do with it, we're looking at notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable with edits 49.248.235.63 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable as per nom, puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oaktree,
    Thank you for your response. I will begin to edit the piece to make it not puffery. My goal is to create information about the work being done. Will make sure to take ou the puffery, but I do believe that 'notable' is not an issue here. As the only organization that has played a huge part in actively organizing for young Indians with quotations to go around, I do believe this is important. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing puffery. Notable organization and worthy if puffery is edited. Rajkumarramana (talk) 09:57, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 03:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyaan61[edit]

Chiyaan61 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON, no evidence filming has begun, should be moved back to draft, and copy-paste move should be repaired BOVINEBOY2008 14:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The movie will kick start next month for sure. The actor was in vacation and the director went to Cannes film festival. as soon as they return back further announcements will be made on this. AvRam (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AvRam Please review the notability guideline for films; films definitely do not merit an article until principal photography has commenced; and usually not until the film is actually released, unless there is some notable aspect of the production of the film beyond announcements(see Rust (suspended film) for an example of this). 331dot (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is close to commencing principal photography, suggest draftify and submit for a review once that happens if there is some notable aspect of the production. If not, it can be submitted when released. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - Coverage is just about announcing that they plan to make the film. Casting has yet to be completed much less commencement of principle photography. Whpq (talk) 12:39, 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 13:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cecile Galiber[edit]

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

Article about someone married to a notable politician however not notable on their own fails WP:ANYBIO. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article does not fulfill notability requirements. Family does not inherit notability by default, according to the guidelines listed. IrishOsita (talk) 02:12, 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 03:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katepu Sieni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 14:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean E. Irving[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per DGG's adage that Billionaires are notable. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus as to whether it should be kept or redirected, but that can be handled editorially since no one is arguing for deletion. Star Mississippi 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Ms. Locklear[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Zero sourcing found. Involvement of Rhett & Link does not transfer notability from them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Am surprised that the nominator found zero sourcing given a Google search for the film title in speech marks found this on page 5 and I also found another source available on newspapers.com. A third source was also found on the Rhett & Link page however it appears to be self-published. NemesisAT (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those both seem to be routine coverages of the film being screened at local festivals. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rhett_&_Link#Film_and_television. I wasn't aware that the GMM guys had put out a documentary, so I may have to watch this. That side, I can't really find that much about this film. I can see where it's screened in some places over the years but not in any major enough fashion to pass that element of NFILM. There is only the one RT review, but it and a tiny bit of coverage aren't really enough to make it independently notable from its creators. This is relatively well covered in the main article in the film and television section, so I'd say that this should redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 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 14:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Rojas Rabiela[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to be notable. She has published a lot, but there's otherwise little biographical information published about her in reliable sources. The article was written by a single editor who also wrote much of the equivalent article on es.wp  Ohc revolution of our times 15:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I don't want to say keep without being more certain, but Wikipedia library seems to bring up reviews of her book. Or am I translating incorrectly? Can you say what you found in the WP:BEFORE searching? Seems like she might pass WP:AUTHOR. I don't think that the same person created the article in two wikipedias is a problem, especially in the context of them creating multiple articles.
  1. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/jar.52.2.3630215 CT55555 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Leaning keep' I have an open mind, I'm not certain, but on balance so far, noting comments below by Espresso Addict, I'd lean towards keep. I may refine/change my !vote as more people add comments and !votes. CT55555 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Google Scholar profile[45] has respectable citations (83,81,68,64,62) for papers not in English and pre-1990 (bearing in mind that according to our article on h-index, both Scopus & GS poorly capture pre-1990 publications). Have not checked for reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the COI tag as I do not feel it is justified to assume COI based on what you've stated here. Is there more to the matter that makes you think there's a problem? --Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I want to reinforce my proposal for the publication of this article that I, as user, have started, I´ll use the Wikipedia Deletion Policy assumptions in the order in which they are listed:

1. There are no copyright violations. 2. It doesn’t contain inflammatory redirects or disparages their subject or others like these. 3. This isn’t advertising or spam, the topic, a biography, is relevant enough to appear in the encyclopedia, due to the issues that Rojas Rabiela has investigated, as you can see below. 4. It doesn’t contain forks. 5. It has enough reliable, verifiable sources. 6. Its topic has enough notability, It’s about a researcher and writer on technologies, the culture of water and labor in pre-Hispanic cultures, of New Spain and its heritage in today's technologies and culture. Surely she’s not as remarkable as Émile Durkheim, Michel Foucault or Margaret Read (I'm surprised that the article about such a famous anthropologist as Read is so short!) but, for example, let us think of the researchers who will search Wikipedia for information on the topics that Rojas Rabiela has investigated: they will find an author and the bibliography that she has written on those topics. 7. The article is about a living person, it denotes her studies, research, books and articles she has written and published, and awards she has won, it doesn’t touch on any sensitive or private life aspect. We need to recall that biographies of living persons require at least one source (sic) in any form (references, external links, etc.) I have included sufficient references and external links to reliable, acceptable pages and sites. 8. It doesn’t contain redundant or useless templates. 9. The article is included only in the categories to which it belongs. 10. It doesn’t have links to obsolete, unused or non-free files. I think that all of us, users and administrators, must follow these policies, not add arguments like the one that has been proposed that the article be deleted because it has been written by a single editor (I) just like the article in Spanish, as it certainly is. This does not make me ill-intentioned or suspicious. It isn’t a Wikipedia Deletion Policy. The article is a translation and improvement from an article that appears already in Wikipedia in Spanish from 2013. I think translate articles from Wikipedia in other languages is valid or it should be valid. I hope the article remains. Best regards. --Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as subject appears notable and no counter-arguments have been made by nominator or anyone else. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  12:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tried to be cautious and understand the nominator better, but they have not replied to me or others. Meets WP:GNG I have scored out my "leaning keep" above. CT55555 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my first time participating in a deletion proposal forum, please take what I immediately wrote above as a reply to you in favor of keeping the article. Best regards. Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clear. Thank you. I was not talking about you, above. All the best. CT55555 (talk) 13:04, 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 00:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Lynch (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Not mentioned in the 3 references in the article, references only mention his notable family members and presume data there applies to him. Notability is not inherited or based on relationships to notable people. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- FMSky (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not independently notable, does not pass WP:GNG at this time, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 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 delete per WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#12 (recreation of previously deleted copyvio material). (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Christine of Ligne[edit]

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

Princess Christine of Ligne

Biography of a living person with no valid references, and about whom a previous BLP has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Christine of Orléans-Braganza. A redirect from Princess Christine of Ligne was deleted, because these are two forms of the name of the same person. I have not seen the deleted article and so am not tagging this article for G4. Sourcing is even more important for a biography of a living person than for other Wikipedia articles. However, this article has two references, neither of which can be checked. The first reference, https://www.monarquia.org/, results in warnings from both Firefox and Chrome. I did not attempt to view the rogue web site. The second reference, http://www.noblesseetroyautes.com/nr01/2012/10/remise-de-lordre-de-sainte-isabel-par-la-duchesse-de-bragance/#comment-325293 , returns the message "Page non trouvee", and the familiar code 404. Maybe the first reference can be viewed with a special browser, but one reference does not establish general notability, especially not when there has already been an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newton (company)[edit]

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

Most coverage seem to be small reviews driven by affiliate marketing, press release, etc. There's consensus that CoinDesk should not be considered to establish notability (see WP:RSP), and BetaKit coverage seems to be insufficient to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, Internet, and Canada. MarioGom (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information 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: 2022-03 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No indication that this entity meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 21:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a ton of references which are nothing more than promotional "See How Easy This Is" articles using screenshots and text largely available on the Newton website. Nothing that meets CORPDEPTH (in-depth info about the *company*, not how-to articles) and ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:53, 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 01:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dyllan Christopher[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_30&oldid=1149286001"