Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 30	June 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. With no response for several days to DaxServer's ping, I don't think a relist will help. but no objection to draftifying if the Bengali editors can identify sufficient sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal (1990 film)[edit]

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

Passing mentions of a film in various TV listings and lists of credits does not demonstrate general notability or other evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a film database like IMDb. We aim to treat films in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence in addition to providing concise summaries of them. In the absence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, we cannot do that. Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There is nothing in this article that establishes film notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This film has significant newspaper coverage, web mentions enough to pass notability. It was a huge success after release. Abbasulu (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If "significant newspaper coverage" exists, where is it? --Worldbruce (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per nom. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankush Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Puff piece. Rejected several times at Afc. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom. Fails WP:GNG as there are zero credible independent sources cited PaulPachad (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on some of the claims, he might be notable, but the sources are terrible. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 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. Sourcing as it currently exists renders this TooSoon. I don't see this changing in the short term so have not draftified but if SMcDonald1 needs a copy, happy to provide it for their userspace. Star Mississippi 02:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNACS Study[edit]

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

The study fails WP:GNG. I don't see independent significant coverage of the study by multiple reliable sources. The rationale for the study appears to be largely WP:SYNTH; the cited sources do not mention the study at all and it does not appear that they would contribute towards the study's notability. Wikipedia is also not a place to publish original research, which appears to be happening here. For these reasons, the article should be deleted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Australia, and Canada. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs independent significant secondary sources that talk about the SNAC study specifically, rather than about the issues it is studying. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. As mentioned in my other reply, the study discussed within the article is ongoing, which means there are fewer independent significant secondary sources published at the moment. However, references to the details of the SNACs study are to the protocol and the Canadian Institute of Health Research database, both of which are government databases that are reviewed and approved independent of the research team for the SNACS study. I kindly suggest we keep this page, as it can be continuously updated to include further secondary sources as they become available. Thank you for your time and consideration reviewing this response. SDMcDonald1 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your comment. I kindly suggest that the Wikipedia article should not be deleted. As the study discussed within the article is ongoing it may be less apparent that WP:GNG guidelines are met. My intention was to continuously update this page throughout the upcoming years. This way when there is an increase in significant coverage of the topic as well as secondary sources that are published to support this study, I could include them within the Wikipedia article. To provide further clarity to readers regarding notability, I have revised the Wikipedia article to indicate this study is ongoing and further information will be included when available.

When discussing details of the study, I currently reference the protocol (which is verified by members of clinicaltrials.gov, a government database) to contribute to the study’s notability. Other cited sources are not meant to mention the study, but rather verify the various evidence/facts presented. I have removed reference to the study website as that is not fully independent of the subject (as required in the notability guidelines).

However, to include coverage from other reliable sources I have also included a citation to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (a reliable government source) database which reviewed and approved the material presented.

All information presented within the article was referenced in prior sources that are included in the reference list.

In addition, thank you for your comment that the rationale of the study is WP:SYNTH. I included multiple sources for the rationale of the study as evidence from multiple sources informed the rationale. No one source, had the necessary information to provide an accurate citation. Within the rationale I stated evidence from various sources that inform the rationale (which I cited with a source to the trial registry). Therefore, I am not implying a conclusion, but rather stating various facts that inform the research study. Thank you for your time and consideration reviewing this response. SDMcDonald1 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote once only. Also, I'm reminding any reviewers that SDMcDonald1 has declared a conflict of interest with this topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that error. I have revised my replies to now only include one vote. I declared a conflict of interest with this topic to be transparent as per the Wikipedia guidelines. However, the article was revised to include a neutral tone. Looking forward to further discussion on this article. SDMcDonald1 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot evaluate notability based upon the mere assertion that there will be multiple independent reliable sources that address this subject in the future but do not yet exist. The fact that the trial is currently indexed by a Canadian government database and an U.S. government database does not confer notability when there is little-to-no independent information that has been written about this study—the information in that American database was provided by McMaster University (who one of the Principal Invesigators works for) while the Canadian database entry is labeled as having the information supplied by the researcher. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly Draftify) with largely the same rationale as nominator. This one pretty clearly seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. I appreciate SDMcDonald1's contributions and respect their position on this matter (their COI notwithstanding), but I agree with Mhawk10 in that there's just not enough independent coverage yet to justify this topic having its own article. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:54, 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 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. Unsettled, like many of the sporting guidelines. I don't see a relist changing that with such little input. Star Mississippi 02:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Fabi[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability at WP:NCURL. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Austria. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played in the highest level of competition in curling, the World Curling Championships.-- Earl Andrew - talk 15:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:NCURL. That’s not sufficient. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for the World Championships was removed entirely, and not replaced with anything. It is still under discussion. I would argue that participation at the World Championships is sufficient enough to warrant notability. especially as a skip.-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for curling competitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 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 inherent notability, and no case made for her meeting GNG. Star Mississippi 02:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Ibrahim Idris[edit]

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

Non-notable relative. WP:NOTINHERITED Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — first lady of a state is notable. I’ll emphasize more if needed. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First ladies of sovereign states might be notable where that carries a ceremonial role, e.g. the First Lady of the US. First ladies of sub-national entities? Unlikely. Again, WP:NOTINHERITED.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above for notability of political role. --Dan Carkner (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was her political role? The article doesn't really help discern it. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem like it passes WP:GNG to me PaulPachad (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reliable sources I can find online for her are a couple notices of her death that are three or four sentences long. Being the spouse of a governor does not guarantee notability (see WP:BIOFAMILY). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first lady of a state or province is not automatically notable per se. I don't see deep coverage. 20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Stab[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no evidence that the film is notable in my BEFORE-type search. Please ping me if suitable sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:59, 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!} 23:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel International 2000 Ltd[edit]

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

Non notable hotel, fails WP:NORG. Absolutely no independent sources found, just references to booking sites. The article has already been deleted twice under the name Hotel International 2000 Ajf773 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect it -- run of the mill and non-notable resort. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company going about its business, supported by references which are listings or transactional announcements, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Gacki[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when you receive two seperate roles in the same TV show, especially one made after 2000, that is a strong indication you are a truly non-notable actor. Plus, if the article is sourced only to IMDb we cannot keep it period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Brotherhood (film series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood VI[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Brotherhood (film series). Individually these films aren't really notable enough for their own entry but as a series they are. I actually think that the first could probably also redirect here as well. It's actually kind of interesting how much of an impact the series has had. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Preston (actor)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Wyoming. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Starring in an indie film (to passing mentions in a couple of reviews) and being in a short-lived TV series didn't result in much media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nothing in-depth of substance.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 redirect to The Brotherhood (film series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood V[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Brotherhood (film series) per my rationale on the other AfDs. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Peterson (actor)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. It is time Wikipedia stopped treating it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Brotherhood (film series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood III[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Brotherhood (film series). As with the other film, there's just not really anything/enough out there to establish individual notability. I've included the plot synopsis on the series page, so this can just redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bgsu98 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Darkness[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All I've found so far is the Felix Vasquez review. That would be seen as a RS, but it's not enough on its own to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the strongest article, but I was very surprisingly able to find enough coverage to muster a keep on my end. I legit wasn't expecting to find what I did. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by ReaderofthePack. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources reviews added to the article since nomination so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Brotherhood (film series). History is available if there is content worth merging. RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood II[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll see what I can find, but offhand my thought is that we can just flesh out the series page and redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Brotherhood (film series). I did an overall search for the series and other than the initial film, the coverage of the other films looks to be more about the series as a whole than the individual ones. I think that we could selectively merge some content into the article, such as very light plot synopses, but there doesn't look to be enough to justify individual articles for each film at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting all of these to the series page sounds like a good idea! Bgsu98 (talk) 20:39, 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 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. Previous AfD was for an unrelated subject (a Japanese radio program) with a similar name. RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Dance[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two "references" one is the i tunes page to buy the album and the other is a paragraph. The only content in the article is "album jacket" type material. I'm usually a bit lax on albums but don't think I would be doing my NPP job properly if I passed this one. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malia Ili[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sourced are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 06:28, 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VLONE[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. AmirŞah 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, United States of America, California, and New York. AmirŞah 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes citations from Complex, Highsnobiety, XXL, Rolling Stone, and HYPEBEAST. These are the most respected and reputable sources in the streetwear and hip-hop cultural communities. The article has additional sources from the official verified VLONE Instagram account. Overall, many streetwear companies create influence through word of mouth, pop-ups, co-signs and social media so there are limitations to how many "independent reliable sources" can be found. Still, a company of this stature with collaborations with A-List artists and household names like Nike should have an article on Wikpedia. I'm open to ways that we can make this article stronger through additional contributions, but do not think there are reasonable grounds to delete it. Nicojtripodi (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sources are lackluster, paid for PR spam, just because someone notable has a business venture doesn't make everything they touch or do notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. The sources are comparable to the pages of other 2010's streetwear brands like Off-White (company) and Supreme (brand). "Notable" is subjective, but anyone with an understanding of streetwear and hip-hop culture would recognize the influence that VLONE has had in both areas over the past decade Nicojtripodi (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is all promotional PR spam.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No suitable sources. Article is all self-written type content. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bonson[edit]

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

Non-notable journeyman boxer. BEFORE search found no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, only brief mentions as an opponent. – ².O.^Boxing 20:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and United Kingdom. ².O.^Boxing 20:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not surprising that in 134 fights he fought some notable fighters, but only 21 of those fights were victories. Fails WP:NBOX and coverage is databases and fight results so the GNG is also not met.Sandals2 (talk) 22:31, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Life Church[edit]

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

Article appears to have been created as part of a frenzied production of articles on Independent Catholic groups. Sources are scant, notability is not present. Tragic, really, because this is perhaps a favorite page of mine. Has to go, though. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article actually makes me want to learn more about Harding and his "interesting" fundraising practices. However, this article was created in 2008 and still only has one source: J. Gordon Melton. I think it's highly unlikely we're going to get any other reliable sources on this topic. Ltwin (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This strikes me as a splinter of a splinter, not denomination and clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or possibly Merge with Independent Catholicism? Not sure if a merge would be appropriate in this case, but I think it may be worth at least discussing. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:58, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet Oncology Commission[edit]

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

Delete. This is not a journal. The journal is The Lancet Oncology. "Commissions" is a section/type of article/workgroup within the journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/drafity? I agree this is not a journal. The question is, are the commissions notable?

https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/cancer-in-sub-saharan-africa-a-lancet-oncology-commission/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33676609/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-09/childhood-cancer-rates-to-surge-in-africa-by-2050-study-says
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1158019/breast-care-international-welcomes-discovery-of.html

I think maybe. But then we're back to the weirdness of the article suggesting this is a journal. So there isn't much good content to save. So maybe drafity? CT55555 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The could be a journal article in which the commissions are mentioned, but the commissions themselves aren't anything special. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the commissions are themselves notable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a journal. The Lancet family of journals calls the mechanism they use for producing an issue of the journal focused on one topic a "commission". A different group of people work on each topic. Other scholarly journals also have issues focused on single topics with outside editors putting them together. It is unlikely that an editorial scheme for a particular journal would be notable. I am surprised the editor writing the article didn't understand this about journals. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As mentioned by HB and RK, this are commissions and not journal. The article is misleading as a research journal WikiPage. Hence, delete. ~ Nanosci (talk) 21:58, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erene Bwakineti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:29, 31 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) 20:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 06:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 15:27, 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 List of Kiribati international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nabaruru Batiri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:25, 31 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) 20:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 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) 05:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 06:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karotu Bakaane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:22, 31 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) 20:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Represented his country at senior international level. Surely this qualifies as notable. Furthermore, to not set bad precedent. Simione001 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL is no longer relevant. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 06:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:57, 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 redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tongarua Akori[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:18, 31 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) 20:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 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) 05:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:58, 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. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paopao[edit]

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

Spammy bio of non-notable musician pasted on top of a redirect to Pao Pao, an unrelated topic. BLAR rejected by article creator. (t · c) buidhe 20:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Puerto Rico. (t · c) buidhe 20:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Text included in bio and wiki page is owned by RichMusic Inc. (Label copy can be provided). Email was sent out to permissions-commons to address this request of deletion. The redirect to Pao Pao has also been moved. There is no need for deletion of this page. NickRM21 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old (Roman) Catholic Church of America[edit]

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

I have tried to make some research on this alleged denomination and found nothing.

The page is strangely a merge of Archdiocese of the Old Catholic Church of America; this is strange, because the article previously stated Old Catholic Church of America was the former name of the group and that before that the name was Archdiocese of the Old Catholic Church of America. I am confused: is it possible there was a quid pro quo for so many years that two pages about the same group under different names coexisted on WP for 9 years until the 2017 merge? No secondary RS is here to help.

Research on the supposed bishops given by the article creator has only yielded WP:PASSING mentions. In Independent Bishops: An International Directory (1990, p. 90), the entry title of Paul Francis Cope, the alleged founder of the group, states he was a part of the Old Catholic Orthodox Church; the entry content reads: "Paul Francis Cope, an American from Kansas City, was consecrated on November 7, 1925, by James Bartholomew Banks of the Old Catholic Orthodox Church." Francis Xavier Resch's WP article does not mention this group. Walter Xavier Brown's orbituary does not mention this group. James E. Bostwick's Legacy.com makes one WP:PASSING mention of "the Old (Roman) Catholic Church of America". There are passing mentions in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article about one of the next primates, Sherman Randall Pius Mosley ("Old Roman Catholic Church of America"). Henry Pleau is described in Independent Bishops (idem., p. 323) as being part only of the Orthodox Catholic Church in America; however, his entry also states: "He [Pleau] was consecrated in Ottawa, Ontario, on September 24, 1974, by Walter Xavier Brown, at that time representing the Archdiocese of the Old Catholic Church of America [...]. The name of Brown's church has recently been changed to Orthodox Catholic Church in America. In 1986, this church entered into an agreement with the Orthodox Catholic Church of America, headed by Alfred Lankenau, to form a confederation of independent bishops, called the Holy Synod of America." I found no secondary RSs about the other primates. The group has an opencorporates page where it is marked as delinquent (i.e. the state has the right to dissolve it).

The article 'Archdiocese of the Old Catholic Church of America', before the merge, used to rely on the 2nd edition of the Melton's encyclopedia of American religions for its claims. Also before the merge, the Old (Roman) Catholic Church of America article relied on two newspaper sources which were simple URLs with no way to identify the data, and the archive of those URLs did not capture the scans needed. I have checked the two sources on NewsBank and removed them (see my summaries here and there) after a lenghty search in which I found no mention of any of the names of this alleged group (I read most pages and searched for all the keywords in the OCR search I could think about, including "catholic").

The archive of the website given since the merge states the name of the organisation is Old Catholic Church of America.

I was unable to review the second edition of the Melton's encyclopedia of American religions given as a source, with neither page number nor any other identifying data; I have doubt it contains any of the information on this alleged group anyway. I doubt this, because there is nothing on the 2009 (8th) edition of the Melton's encyclopedia of American religions on any of the names given, not a single mention; this edition has a record of the defunct groups at the end, which includes, e.g., the Christ Catholic Church of the Americas and Europe. Moreover, WP:GNG (WP:NCHURCH) is not proven simply by one RS possibly mentioning or discussing a subject.

I have not found any current website of this alleged group.

Therefore, since the group clearly does not meet GNG and NCHURCH, I propose the article be deleted. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somewhat familiar with this, the churches that rejected Vatican II reforms call themselves the Old Catholic Church. I'm not sure if there's any sort of formal reunion of parishes under this "denomination". Sourcing is hard to find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the group claims (claimed?) to be Old Catholic. There are numerous Old Catholic groups and organisations, from the major ones (Union of Utrecht, Union of Scranton), to the non-notable micro-groups (like this one, possibly). Veverve (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is not a standard Old Catholic denomination, but clearly a very minuscule recent Independent Catholic group with almost no reliable sourcing. I did find a website that appears to be somewhat current, but every reference to their clergy only reveals primary-source information. Interestingly, my cursory search yielded a Pinterest that I can link on request that suggests that this group is somehow active insofar as members have attended conferences of similarly disposed independent Catholic congregations and clergy (and that the denomination in question also apparently approves of gay marriage). Due to some local knowledge and...well, let's not worry about it, I wonder if it is somehow related to these interesting chaps (which is of course not an argument for notability). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic Life Church WP article only relies on the 2nd edition of The Encyclopedia of American Religions; however, as expected it has an entry in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (p. 1150). I do think groups do not get removed easily from the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Veverve (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per well-reasoned and detailed nom. If more sources turn up I'd reconsider, but this looks pretty cut and dried to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & others. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jdcompguy (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ltwin (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems obvious per nom. Gnomatique (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Neither qualify WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Nothing significant came up with Google search. Unlike the last AfD, now secondary schools aren't deemed notable merely due to their existence. Radioactive (talk) 15:17, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 EFL Championship[edit]

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

Hi, my reason for suggesting this article should be deleted for now is that it is too early to say anything meaningful about the 2023-24 EFL Championship given that the 2022-23 EFL Championship hasn't started yet. Thameslinkrail (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON. Giant Snowman 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON. Rillington (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON. We haven't even started the 2022-23 season yet, so there will be literally nothing to say about the 2023-24 season for nigh on a year -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The billionth one of these infernal "list of people on the postage stamps of X". No sources, no assertation of this being a valid topic per WP:SALAT, no maintenance, no relevance. Far too many of these are closing as "delete", showing a clear consensus that this is not a suitable topic for a list. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Jamaica. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are nearly 200 countries in the world that could all argue they deserve a similar list. It would be incredibly difficult to verify or track this info which makes it basically useless. The lists of notable people from a certain country probably sees a ton of overlap with this list as well. Lindsey40186 (talk) 19:43, 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 people from Port Antonio, Jamaica and other totally unsourced lists that are all over wp. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? In what way was Diana, Princess of Wales, important to the history and society of Jamaica? Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When she married in 1981, she became crown princess to Jamaica. That was a easy one. I’m more surprised about Eleanor Roosevelt; but some seemingly strange incidents doesn’t disturb the overall policy. Bw Orland (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what impact did this women from an ocean across being given a mostly ceremonial title have on Jamaica? She doesn't even appear to have visited the place, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This is not a discussion about «what good did the British royalty ever do to Jamaica!?», is it? I was merely giving a rational to why the state of Jamaica chose to depict the royal wedding. Bw --Orland (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a discussion about what did the post-1980 British Royalty do if you want to assert that they are impactful. She never even was in Jamaica, she created no policy, her husband was not even the monarch during her lifetime, so yes, this seems to be a clear sign that she was not impactful, and thus your claim that only people impactful to Jamaica are included is not backed by actual facts, let alone sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, John. You are making up strawmen to fight against. There is noone here claiming that Diana or Charles have been "impactful" in Jamaia. We are merely pointing out that the crown prince's wedding are considered a significant event within a monarchy. Quite as expected within a national stamp policy. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A listing on a stamps sale website is in no way a source of any useful information for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The available evidence tells us some people are depicted on postage stamps because the government involved thinks they will lead to the selling of more postage stamps. We have no source here that treats the subject of the article as a group topic. We need a reliable source that supports all inclusion, not just one that supports a few entries in the list. If there are not sources that cover the whole topic specifically and only the whole topic (thus a catalog that lists every stamp Jamaica has ever made, without singling out people for special consideration) is not a source that shows such. Elenor Roosevelt being on the list shows that the claim that people on the list have specific meanings to Jamiaca is just plain bunk. Beyond that, what source tells us people are depicted on posage stamps because of their importance to a country. In the US we have depicted child art contest winners, who are in no way notable, we have depicted Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, just because his mother took him as a bady on a major jorrney of exploration and commerce expansion, we have depicted people who were painted by a famous portrait painter to honor that portrait painter, and we have on at least one occasion accidentally depicted a total nobody because someone got confused between that person and a family member. Being on a postage stamp is not a sign of notability, it is not a sign of special connection to a place. Beyond this, no one has ever producted one reliable source that shows why people is a special topic, more so than decisions about what animals, what buildings, what cities or other settlements, or what abstract designs one puts on a postage stamp. The sourcing does not justify this article, and we do not create lists based on a vauge notion that it is notable, we need specific sources to support the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that Wikipedia started in 2001, but this list is only claimed to be complete through 1985 (based on what source though?) does not suggest it is truly a notable topic. If the list was never possibly less than 16 years out of date, it suggests it is not a topic people care enough about to keep up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article dates back to 2005. So when it was created it was allegedly 20 years out of date. If there is anything on this topic worth saying, I still do not see why it cannot be said in the article Postage stamps and postal history of Jamaica. For example it appears that, if this list is actually correct, we could say "while Jamaica was a colony the only people pictured on the stamps were either the ruling monrachs or their consorts" and be done with it. There is no particular reason to tell which years particular monarchs were depicted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do not get me started on why that article gives only one unsourced paragraphy on the topic in the 60 years of Jamaica's indepdence. I personally think all those articles are subpar because they over emphasize stamps and under emphasize the structures and infastructures of the postal system. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Johnpacklambert: this last remark was very interesting. You seem to think that stamps are uninteresting, and gets too much attention. And that seem to be the reason for this series of deletion proposals. There are many things on this very planet that are overrated, in my personal opinion. (rap musicians, ski jumpers, tram stops, etc) Still, I am proud to say that my personal opinion in these matters never led me to deletion proposals. Bw Orland (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not make this series of deletion proposals, so what I think does not effect them. The fact of the matter is list articles require sourcing that covers the list topic as a whole and is a reliable source, we lack that in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "People on the postage stamps of Jamaica" 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) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me remind people we still have no sources that cover more than 3 people here. The fact that someone thought 3 certain people being on postage stamps was worth covering in an article somewhere in no way shows the list as a whole is notable. We for example have 0 sources on Princess Diana being on the list, let alone sources that give analysis as to why Jamaiaca chose to portray her on a stamp. We do not even come close to having the sources to justify this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources appear to be available that discuss this topic as a group or set, thus it fails WP:LISTN. Just because the individuals depicted on the stamps are notable does not automatically mean this topic is. Rorshacma (talk) 23:26, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of South Africa[edit]

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

The billionth one of these infernal "list of people on the postage stamps of X". No sources, no assertation of this being a valid topic per WP:SALAT, no maintenance, no relevance. Far too many of these are closing as "delete", showing a clear consensus that this is not a suitable topic for a list. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and South Africa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a mess. I remain unconvinced the topic meets inclusion criteria at all. If we absolutely must include it, we need to organize by year, not by alphabet. South Africa has such a huge change in government in the early 1990s that seeing any continuity before and after that makes no sense. However as said there are no sources, this artice has existed for over 17 years with no sources, articles should not exist over 17 days without sources, and to justify a list we need reliable sources that treat the subject of a list as a topic, not just sources from which the facts of a list can be extracted. Not everything that can be organized into a list needs to be. I think one issue is some editors see these lists as a way to monitor which of these people have articles, lists on Wikipedia are not meant for monitoring content creation, they are meant to group together things that people see as important groupings, and I see no evidence that people on postage stmaps count as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "People on the postage stamps of South Africa" does not appear to meet WP:NLIST; 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) 21:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another stamp-related list that has no sources discussing the topic as a group or set, failing WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eve of Destruction (miniseries)[edit]

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

Deprodded with claims of sources, but they all turned out to be false positives. Only one hit on ProQuest, all GBooks hits were for unrelated content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:07, 31 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?)} 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Review at Radio Times [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Freer, Sloan. "Eve of Destruction". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The reviewer game the film a one-star review. The review notes: "A tiny plot is stretched beyond breaking point in this interminably dull and slow-paced disaster movie in which a prospective new power source has deadly repercussions. Favouring unnecessary padding over character and story development, the cut-down TV mini-series ends up mainly talk and no drama, as boffins Steven Weber and Christina Cox seem to bore even themselves ..."
2. Foster, Tyler (2013-07-16). "Eve of Destruction". DVD Talk. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  Based on the discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#DVDTalk and DVD Verdict, DVD Talk is a reliable source. The author of the piece is a member of the Online Film Critics Society according to his biography. The review notes: "Beattie's screenplay also stumbles when it comes to character drama. One of the big scenes in the film is two female scientists sniping at each other about sleeping their way up the corporate ladder, which is lazy and plays to stereotypes in all of the worst ways. The script avoids moral complexity by lifting the true responsibility for the destruction off of Karl and Sarah's shoulders, giving that work to a more villainous character that the audience is free to dislike. ... Director Robert Lieberman is fine at delivering spectacle with clarity, but some of his decisions are strange and detract from the tension. One of the most baffling is his decision to reveal a bit of information right before the break between the two halves of the show that would create tension had he left it ambiguous."
3. ""Eve of Destruction": Reelz miniseries pits Steven Weber vs. global disaster". Channel Guide Magazine. 2013-04-12. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The review notes: "I won’t pretend to fully (or much less than partially) understand the science behind it all, but it’s undoubtedly a topic ripe for the disaster-movie pickings. ReelzChannel gets the ball rolling with the two-part Eve of Destruction, which stars Steven Weber (Wings) as Karl Dameron, a brilliant but singular-minded physicist who — along with his partner Rachel Bannister (Christina Cox) — is thisclose to realizing his dream of creating a machine that will “harvest a limited pool of dark energy, and serve to power our world forever.”"
4. Covey, Ryan (2014-01-21). "Blu-Ray Review: Eve Of Destruction". CHUD.com. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The review notes: "Eve of Destruction (2013) is a disaster movie, and it’s the worst kind of disaster movie: a shot-for cheap, Canadian, made-for-TV, two-part mini-series, starring people who were moderately famous more than ten years ago, disaster movie. ... There’s a lot of good actors in this. Steven Weber, Christina Cox, Treat Williams, even American Mary and Ginger Snaps’ Katherine Isabelle turns up in decent sized role as one of the eco terrorists. ... The plot alternates between nonsensical psuedo-science and soap opera bullshit and neither one does much to captivate attention. ... Eve of Destruction is a classic example of one of the worst sub-genres of junk-food TV that people only watch when there aren’t Ice Road Truckers reruns on for some reason."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eve of Destruction to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell do you find this stuff? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I de-prodded because there were many sources, but it immediately came here anyway. Thank you Cunard for laying some of them out so we can see it meets GNG. Keep. Jacona (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources identified by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG passed with sources found by Cunard, along with Broadway World & Albuquerque Journal. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:41, 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 delete G11 by User:Nihiltres. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Waggy[edit]

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

let's just put this nonsense out of it's misery, this is nonsense created by yet another vanity spam sock, previously under Lil Snoop, Turna (musician), Draft:Tykiid and about 12 other names. This is basically a hoax with a dash of vanity spam. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
let's not use such words as nonsense, Your a grow up. Cranky Savage (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no citations. Could probably be a speedy delete too. CT55555 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be but SPI is backlogged and the socks are relentless, so time to put this and whatever other name he's decided to use out of it's misery. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Why AfD instead of BLPPROD? Dark-World25 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the article. I will add references in a few moment. I am still busy expanding the article and adding relevant information, this article doesn't have any reference because it has been created not so long ago. Give me time to improve it by not deleting any of my work🙏🏼 Cranky Savage (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cranky Savage: So this is your sole aim of editing Wikipedia? Creating articles about yourself and associates? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball all-time leaders in home runs by pitchers[edit]

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

I have two issues with this article. 1) This seems to be an outdated statistic, as the adoption of the DH by the NL this year will render pitcher batting obsolete, excepting pitchers who bat for themself, like Shohei Ohtani. 2) This does not seem to be an official MLB statistic, thus most of this article is original research sourced from baseball-reference. I am only able to find one RS discussing the most "home runs hit by pitchers", the SABR ref in the article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disclosure: I've been editor that took this list from a small list to what it is now. I believe the statistic to be relevant, even with the universal DH implemented, as it still generates interest. Eventually, the "active" section will disappear, but the rest will always be historically relevant. It DOES seem odd that this is a stand-alone home run by position list, so there really needs to be a list for each position for this to be fully relevant. I have a rough draft of the Catchers list, but I do find that constructing it encroaches on original research. Just need to find some lists published by SABR and other verifiable sources. I haven't had the time in years to dedicate to building and editing, so others would have to step up.Neonblak ^talk - 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of sources that can demonstrate interest in this particular statistic? I do think that there is interest in all time home leaders for other positions, but not for pitchers specifically. Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact that pitchers will only rarely be batters should have no bearing on whether or not this remains an article - notability is not temporary so if it has been a notable topic it remains one. Whether this list should exist is a different question for which we'd need evidence of RS covering this topic or evidence that it would merit inclusion in a different article but needed to be spun out for reasons of size. I'm confident the latter piece isn't true so it would just be about whether or not this list is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to wait and see if the sourcing is there, but I want to second Barkeep49's observation that notability is not temporary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, thirding Barkeep49's comments regarding WP:NTEMP and that a rule change does not render the subject's history obsolete. But yes sourcing would be nice. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
If that can be established, Stathead and the like can easily help fill in the rest of the list and ensure that it is comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN with grouping discussed in the following sources of significant coverage:
1. "Career Batting Records From Great Hitting Pitchers" (PDF). SABR.
2. "This is each position's top home run hitter". MLB.
3. "Which Pitchers Hit the Most Home Runs in MLB History?". Sportscasting.
4. Seventh Inning Stretch: Baseball’s Most Essential and Inane Debates. pp. 26–27.
5. "Extra! Extra! Read All About It! Pitcher Hits Triple!". The Hardball Times.
6. "Pitchers Dig the Long Ball (At Least When They Are Hitting)". Spring 2012 Baseball Research Journal.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I've integrated some into the article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG and NLIST. That the DH has been adopted does not make the history of pitchers hitting non-notable (notability is not temporary in any case) and being an official statistic is not an element of notability. Rlendog (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Passes NLIST per the SABR piece and sources cited by Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limerick, Illinois[edit]

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

Survey says that this was a 4th class post office on the same farm that's still there. The placename origins book calls it a village but I don't give that a lot of weight. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded the article. This was a populated place, and is recognized as an unincorporated area by the county. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As previously pointed out, it is an unincorporated community in Bureau County, Illinois. Lindsey40186 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely not an "unincorporated community" unless the latter is a euphemism for "two farms whose buildings are on opposite sides of the road." As for the county's "unincorporated areas", upon rereading the county website I don't see it as claiming that the places named are settlements or even "areas", which is to say, there's no indication that each name is a formally recognized unit unto itself. The whole section is a verbose, bureaucratic, overly spelled-out way of saying what the first sentence already says: that if you aren't in a municipality which has its own zoning, you have to go through the county for building permits. I've already looked at a bunch of the place names listed, and while a few of them are indeed obvious small towns, plenty of them obviously aren't. It's clear in context that "unincorporated areas" means "all of the county which isn't in an incorporated municipality". Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um...sure...the county website must be wrong to call Limirick an unincorporated community. Any issue with this settlement having a meeting house, post office, store, blacksmith, physician, Methodist church, and about 15 to 20 dwellings? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The county website does not call this an "unincorporated community". It doesn't way anything about what it is at all, except to state that it's in the unincorporated part of the county.

I'm willing to go with "former town", since there isn't a town there now. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep appears to have some coverage and a number of houses but no census data. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 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 merge to Amin Khan (actor). ✗plicit 23:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Khan filmography[edit]

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

like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Akram Shuvo discography there is no need for a separate filmography page PRAXIDICAE💕 16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. 72.10.126.197 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amin Khan (actor). Actually, implementing that merge is probably uncontroversial so an AfD is a bit of an overkill. Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pichpich, @Praxidicae Hi, please also merge Anwar Parvez discography with Anwar Pervez (musician). This article basically has only 4 lines (and there are more). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Amin Khan (actor) is a stub article. I am not sure why user:Abbasulu removed this section and created this article (also without providing any attribution). I restored that. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amin Khan (actor) per above. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:36, 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. Consensus is the article should be fixed and improved, not deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OC wall calendar[edit]

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

Article fails notability, corrections in sourcing refers to much of the material presented in the article is incorrect/misconstrued, and the article is a long, long standing orphan. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator appears to have been a SPA who disavowed and blanked article after sourcing revealed material to be a hoax. Not doing a speedy deletion because a debate regarding its notability as a hoax might be relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm. Is there any page this could be merged into? I mean, part of the page seems at least somewhat relevant, but I don't have any idea where this would be merged. Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: Don't wholly disagree, but I discovered this after going through the LGBT and Eastern Orthodoxy categories, all of which are heavily underpopulated. The sources mostly seem to engage with this in the context of general Pride, and I don't see anyone with any notability mentioned in the secondary sources that we could attach this to. If someone finds something, a sentence or two into another article might be good. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep sources exist, even if they’re not great. Should probably just be turned into a stub with a clear note that the church dismissed the calendar as a hoax by people posing as priests/clergy unless a suitable merge target is found (which is unlikely). Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: I'll do that now, but maintain that I think a couple HuffPo articles written then partially retracted are insufficient for notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hence “weak keep”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get a hit from the "Business Review", rest of the sources seem unreliable. Huff Post is a reliable source, but the article uses two versions of the same website as sourcing. They closed the Canadian version of Huff Post regardless, business decision after a union vote... Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Revised article to include claim that models were clergy, and the orthodox authorities' response reported in the Bucharest Harold. Reporting by second independent source suitably establishes the notability of the subject. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found additional in-depth coverage in The Washington Post and PinkNews. Definitely passes the general notability guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we go with keep, I think using the original RNS story that was syndicated to WashPo would be a better cite but either way it certainly establishes notability that could qualify it for retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:03, 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. The only "keep" rationale is "If there was a series of named kings, there was a kingdom", and that is textbook WP:OR. Everybody else is against keeping the article, but it's unclear whether a redirect is merited; that remains up to editors to figure out. Sandstein 05:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Achaemenid Kingdom[edit]

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

There is no such thing as an "Achaemenid kingdom" distinct from the later Achaemenid Empire; a description of the latter's predecessor is already done more correctly by Anshan (Persia)#Cradle of Achaemenid Persia. The creator based the entire idea on the Encyclopaedia Iranica, but the entry in question is just a family history that is out of date with modern research. The article itself barely describes a kingdom at all, it's just a low-effort collection of genealogical details copied over from primary sources like Cyrus Cylinder#Text and Behistun Inscription#Lineage, or other wikipedia articles like Achaemenid dynasty.

Prod endorsed by TenPoundHammer, and removed by DGG with the reasoning 'valid article, possible merge available' despite that I had explicitly pointed out the factual and sourcing problems in the prod. Avilich (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have better coverage of this topic based on more recent scholarship elsewhere, and this naming convention is not standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly redirect to Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there was a series of named kings, there was a kingdom. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Achaemenid Empire or Achaemenid dynasty. Still a valid search term as clicking the REF search at the top of the AFD shows various universities refer to the "Achaemenid Kingdom". Dream Focus 12:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to save. T8612 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The early, pre-imperial Achaemenid state (or "kingdom of Anshan") is a valid topic. Redirect either to the empire article or the dynasty if the material is redundant. Readers, however, are poorly served if we have articles on kings and none on their kingdom, which would be the case. Factual and sourcing problems are fixable and Iranica is RS. I don't see grounds for deletion here. Srnec (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readers, however, are poorly served if we have articles on kings and none on their kingdom Are you paying attention? We do have an article on the latter, I just linked to it. The grounds for deletion is WP:Verifiability. The material isn't just redundant, it's incorrect; and RSes can become obsolete, as the particular entry of the Iranica cited here has. The kings listed here weren't Achaemenids, and so any idea of an "Achaemenid kingdom" or a "pre-imperial Achaemenid state" is a thing of the creator's imagination and your own. Avilich (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you? You state that the material is more correct at Anshan and that the kings listed here weren't Achaemenids... but the Anshan article says that Anshan fell under Persis Achaemenid rule in the 7th century BC, having been captured by Teispes. Even the article Teispids calls them a branch of the Achaemenids. Moreover, if the theory that Cyrus the Great had no relation with Achaemenes is true, then he wasn't an Achaemenid either! Certainly the empire we call Achaemenid was created by one of a line of kings of Anshan and that which I called a "pre-imperial Achaemenid state" was quite real, whatever you want to call it. I do not propose that we continue to call it the "Achaemenid Kingdom". In fact, the Teispid article, to which Anshanite Kingdom redirects, is the article I'm talking about. I just didn't know we had it already. Srnec (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cyrus wasn't an Achaemenid. The other articles are wrong on that too, but those can be improved, whereas this one can't, because its sole purpose is to repeat the mistakes of the others. There are currently 3 articles dedicated to pre-550 BC Persia: Anshan (Persia), Teispids, and "Achaemenid kingdom". The last one is useless and incorrect, and should be deleted. Avilich (talk) 19:26, 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. John Pack Lambert, it's unclear whether you'd like to keep a copy for draft or whether you don't feel his article can be improved. If you would like it, just ping me. Happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian F. Harrington[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not default notable. The sourcing on Harrintong is largely to primary sources. This is not the stuff on which we can base an article. Pretty much the only non-prmary source is an incidental mention in a memoir of another career forieng service officer. This is just not the level of sourcing we need to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I created this article back in 2011. At that time I was under the impression that all ambassadors were default notable. I have since realized this is not the case. I have to admit I have no memory of actually creating this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a first for me (someone arguing to delete an article that they created) I recommend you draftify it and then follow the process here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Deleting_your_draft it doesn't seem like good use of community efforts to discuss this further. CT55555 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it, a couple-few times. AfD is supposed to be a consideration and discussion of the merits of a marginal article. I doesn't have to be adversarial. Any editor can nominate an article. Granted, an AfD for an article one has created should be really rare. But I mean it's not like people don't ever publish articles that they later realize are marginal. What the heck are you supposed to do then? And I mean that's AfD'ing on purpose; turns out OP didn't even realize he had made the article.

So, do you have a view on the merits of the article? Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a view on the merits of the article. I've deliberately avoided looking into it in the context of the bizarre circumstances here. Your comment above is about three times the length of the article, suggesting that other editors might be deeply invested in it is tenuous. A PROD would be a sensible compromise if you don't think my drafity and delete is the logical approach, even after the nominator got to this point. CT55555 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see... commenting when you don't have an opinion on the merits of the article, going around and insulting other editors including on their talk pages, and suggesting an article like this should be PRODded, which is... incorrect, I'm hoping that this is not your usual practice in AfD discussions? Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good faith feedback. I always try to listen to critical feedback. I have understood that going to someone's talk page is the correct action if you have feedback for an editor. A courtesy that I note you have not extended to me, even though this is the second time you have critique of me (on the same topic). Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you wish to continue giving me feedback.

However, as you've asked in public, I will answer. I have engaged in AfD 289 times to date. I've had cause to comment on my perceptions of interactions or nominations, I think, three times with two editors. The other one is currently at WP:ANI for the reasons I gave feedback on. So me giving feedback is rare and has occurred approximately 1% of the times I've engaged at AfD.

If you can point to any insult I've made, I will quickly apologise. I did not seen one, and yet you seem to have identified at least two people who I've insulted. Please let me know who these editors are. I would like to attempt to make peace with them.

I do welcome the feedback that my recommendation was erroneous - and would welcome more feedback on that. Specifically do you think the community consensus would not allow a draftification of a 53 word stub by its author? That does seems unlikely to me in a place where common sense is prioritized over strict rule adherence. And why would a PROD not be a better solution? CT55555 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t April 1, is it? Jacona (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Do you have anything to say on the merits of the article? Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this multiple times. Once on a congressional candidate when I later realized failed congressional candidates were not default notable. At least once on a state level beauty pageant winner when I realized those were not default notable. I think once on an article on a columnists whose work mainly appeared in just one paper when I realized those were not really default notable. There may be a few other cases. I think I have seen others do it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I guess. It's marginal. Ambassador is usually a pretty big deal, and it'd be reasonable to hold that the assumption would be that some ambassadors should be assumed to be worth documenting, since after all we are not running out of paper. I think people who were ambassadors from one major power to another, if more than briefly, to merit consideration. After all if you served in the Nebraska state legislature in 1911-1913 we will document your life.

Harrington was only ambassador to Panama tho. It says here he was deputy director -- number two man, I think that would mean -- of the Office of the Foreign Service, an important arm of the US Department of State, during the Cold War. It's a reliable ref, but oddly I don't see this mentioned anywhere else, so, huh. But even if true, that's not a high enough office to merit an article. There's not much else that I find right off so he doesn't meet WP:BIO as far as I can see. Nor am I seeing anything else such as works produced or being involved in important events.

He's got bluelinks on both sides on both sides of the "succession" box for Ambassador to Panama, and I think it's pretty mediocre to go around breaking strings of bluelinks in those boxes. Why. How does that help the reader following along the box. It will degrade the experience of some readers. Why have the boxes if we're going to do that. On that basis alone I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion, but we're here. And there's really nothing to hang a Keep vote on, which is too bad, but it is what it is. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- We have decided that ambassadors are not default notable. When any country can potentially have over 100 at any given time, the notion that being an ambassador is a big deal is not supported. Ambassadors do not create policy, legislators do. Strings of blue links when they are a bunch of articles lacking adequate sources are not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla and the Bird[edit]

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

"Upcoming" since 2018 with no further progress made. Sources say nothing except that it's coming soon and involves a director who is now dead, likely indicating that the show was aborted with no further verifiable content made beyond what's already in this article. A bunch of "this is coming soon" sources all from the same month do not equal notability if no further progress was made. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~. Haven't we done this before? Either way, per nom. ~~Nothing particularly encyclopedic is going to happen here any time soon.~~ Something encyclopedic happened here. Keep it. casualdejekyll 16:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable, unlikely to find anything else. Soooo wanting to put a Simpsons quote about the gorillas freezing to death in the winter, problem solved. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agree with nom. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep per improvements by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. Ample coverage of this. There is no news it was canceled, somethings take awhile to get done. I find the book got reviewed at https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/zack-mcdermott/gorilla-and-the-bird/ Dream Focus 08:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFTV says A mere announcement that a pilot is in development may be noted in the Wikipedia articles about its creators, writers or confirmed cast members, but absent significant evidence that the pilot has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence, the announcement itself is not sufficient basis for a standalone article about the pilot. Literally all we know is that this pilot was going to be made but nothing else happened after the initial announcement. This applies to anything that never gets started; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trillium Circle. The book may be notable, and I have no objection if the article is rewritten to be about the book should enough sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I go by the general notability guidelines, not a pointless essay you just linked to and quoted from. At the top of that Essay it reads: This is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Dream Focus 15:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because notability requires sustained coverage. A few trivial announcements at one point in time look like WP:ROTM stuff, and are far below the requirements for inclusion on any respectable encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no actual policy reason given for deletion. Artw (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NSUSTAINED is implied from my reasoning. RandomCanadian figured that out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jean-Marc Vallée or Draftify. (Or draftify and then redirect.) Concur that the article should not remain in main space, but the work that has gone in so far should be WP:PRESERVED for when the production phase actually begins (if it does). Right now, it does not satisfy WP:NTV recommendations which follow WP:NFILM guidelines to keep out projects stuck in development hell. (The old NTV was even more strict needing the show to air.) A series order is significant, but it can still be cancelled, just at higher cost. With the main creative force now deceased, it may be less likely to ever go to production. -2pou (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote replaced below after refactor. -2pou (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reframe the article to be about the book instead of the upcoming television series per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources about the book. The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources about the book
1. Hornbacher, Marya (2018-01-26). "Delving Into the Bipolar Mind". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The book review notes: "McDermott’s glorious “Gorilla and the Bird” is one of the best memoirs I’ve read in years. The sheer, sharp pleasure of his prose is reason enough to pick it up. The first thing to know about McDermott’s book is not that it’s about having bipolar disorder — lots of people do. It’s that “Gorilla and the Bird,” though sure to be marketed as a mental health memoir, is equally a tragicomic gem about family, class, race, justice and the spectacular weirdness of Wichita, Kan."
2. Neill, Rosemary (2018-04-21). "Zack McDermott's Gorilla and the Bird: A Memoir of Madness". The Weekend Australian. ProQuest 2028997274. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The book review notes: "McDermott, who is about to visit Australia for the Sydney Writers Festival, has written a critically acclaimed account of his battle with bipolar disorder, Gorilla and the Bird: A Memoir of Madness and a Mother’s Love. The title is derived from the mother and son’s nicknames for each other: McDermott calls his mum “the Bird” because of “her tendency to move her head in these choppy semicircles when her feathers were ruffled”. Cisneros-McGilvrey calls her son “Gorilla” because of his barrel chest and hairy body. ... The book, which gives readers a first-hand account of what it’s like to be incarcerated in a hospital for the mentally ill, is as brutally honest as it is darkly hilarious."
3. Weldon, Glen (2017-10-03). "'Mental,' 'Gorilla And The Bird': Two Starkly Different Accounts Of Bipolar Disorder". NPR. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The book review notes: "It's a good line, and one that has the added benefit of being true. Zack McDermott should know; he's been through a few stints at mental institutions as a consequence of his bipolar disorder, which he chronicles, with an affable and often rueful wit, in Gorilla and the Bird: A Memoir of Madness and a Mother's Love. ... McDermott's Gorilla and the Bird is the earthier read — warmer, more garrulous and ingratiating. It's less interested in the history of mental illness and the culture of treatment around it, and more concerned with how his bipolar disorder affects those around him — his mother, especially. ... Gorilla and the Bird looks outward, at the many interpersonal connections that bipolar disorder tests, and sometimes breaks forever."
4. "Gorilla and the Bird a memoir". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 85, no. 14. 2017-07-15. p. 178. ISSN 1948-7428. EBSCOhost 124081327. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The book review notes: "McDermott’s memoir is decidedly offbeat, unfolding like a country song. There’s the law, some good jokes, substance abuse, and love lost and found, but there’s also a keenly felt sense of justice for the people who can’t catch a break in this world ... If the Joads were tanked up on Bud Light and Haldol and Steinbeck were under Hunter S. Thompson’s influence, this might be the result—rueful, funny, and utterly authentic."
5. Reynolds, Emily (2018-04-27). "Gorilla and the Bird: A memoir of madness and a mother's love". The Times Literary Supplement. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06 – via Gale.
  The book review notes: "True to its subject, zack McDermott's memoir Gorilla and the Bird reads much like the start of a manic episode. Breathless, funny, absurd and often completely inappropriate, it gleefully jumps from place to person to idea, taking on class, race, sex, family and more along the way. ... Although Gorilla and the Bird has been heavily marketed as a "mental illness memoir", a good proportion of the book isn't about mental illness at all; the central theme, in fact, is love. ... The humour and affection with which McDermott describes both his clients and his fellow psych-ward inmates never veers into mawkishness or pity--a rare quality in literature on this topic."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gorilla and the Bird to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reframed the article to be about the book instead of the upcoming television series the book is based on. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll: @Oaktree b: @Donaldd23: @RandomCanadian: @MrsSnoozyTurtle: @2pou: following Cunard's renovation of the article to be about the book, what do you guys think now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY etc. casualdejekyll 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Original AfD was about the TV series, but an article about the book with the coverage of the book (not of the TV series) found by Cunard appears to be obviously more appropriate here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (struck previous !vote above). Wow! Nice work, Cunard! I wouldn't have changed my mind based on book sources alone since they're different works, but actually doing the work to re-write the article definitely changes my mind. The sourcing clearly meets WP:NBOOK, so I'm happy to re!vote. There is some residual WikiData cleanup that comes from refactoring an article, but a redirect can be created for the old WikiData item, and a new one linked to the book article. WP:HEY, good save! -2pou (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the improvements by Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mr. Bill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh Nooo! Mr. Bill Presents[edit]

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

Deprodded with "obviously notable", but I couldn't find any sources. No relevant results on ProQuest, just TV guide listings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:19, 31 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?)} 15:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Entertainment, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The entry in Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010 is descriptive (100% plot summary plus production details) and pretty much a catalogue-like entry (just like ours). WP:GNG (and Wikipedia:Notability (media)) equires that wider significance is shown, and while inclusion in catalogue-like encyclopedis is something, I don't think such a short mention is sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. It is better than a passing mention in half a sentence, but IMHO, without even a sentence of analysis that this work was important or significant somehow, at best it can be mentioned in some list or in creator's bio or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Mr. Bill.Keep, a well-known repeated sketch of the early SNL shows, there is no reason to consider removing the page. On and on go these noms of popular culture icons. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Keep major and popular articles which are nommed day after day is a valid argument for us nonwikilawyers. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to keep here? So little of the content is sourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, struck it. I didn't know there was an entire article on Mr. Bill, where this should be redirected. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skeeba[edit]

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

Person does not meet the criteria for Notable People. The record label is his private label, his social media accounts aren't verified, and his number of followers is less than 1.5K. It's not a judgement on his musical talent, but Wikipedia can't become a repository of every local band/musician

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Raynault[edit]

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

Non-notable. Promotional, with apparent COI / possible UPE issues. Effectively unreferenced, as it only lists a few sources at the end, without actually citing any. And of the three RS secondary sources, none fully meets the GNG criteria, the rest are IMDb and LinkedIn, and BEFORE finds nothing beyond the usual close primary sites, social media accounts, directory listings, etc. The career details look at first impressive, but essentially are just a work history, with nothing to indicate they would add up to FILMMAKER / ARTIST notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Canada. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He does have an IMDb page, but all nominations were as part of a group with no individual contributions that I could find. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing is even close to showing notability. Having an IMDb page is of no worth, since IMDb is not a reliable source, we should not be consulting it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One hit in La Presse [2] and bunch of mentions in lists of Emmy nominations [3], but this article badly needs a clean up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not cite any sources. I am not finding any secondary reliable sourcesWomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's definitely some self-promotional puffery going on here. There are numerous award claims (Oscar, BAFTA, CSA) that don't actually wash: he may have worked on the associated films, but he has never been personally named as the actual nominee for any of the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, the BAFTA Award for Best Special Visual Effects or the Canadian Screen Award for Best Visual Effects. A person does not inherit a notability freebie just because he happens to have worked on award-nominated films if he was not himself singled out as the nominee, so none of those assertions count as notability claims at all.
To be fair, he does genuinely have the claimed Emmy Award nod, but there are too many other problems with the article for me to be able to say "keep because Emmy nomination" and walk away. Between the three legitimate newspaper articles listed in the external links section and the additional one that Oaktree b found above, there might be enough coverage to restart a more neutral and accurate version from scratch, but both the bad formatting and the extreme inaccuracy issues here (as well as the clear conflict of interest, given that he started the article himself and it's since been extensively edited by another user named "Valerieraynault") mandate the WP:TNT treatment: this is so deeply infested with problems that even if he does have a valid notability claim, it would be better to restart a properly written article from scratch than to retain this. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is promotional, whether COI/UPE or not. As the nominator and others have said, it inflates his accomplishments. Bearcat brings up important considerations, that there may be some misrepresentation in the article. If GNG can be shown to be met, a WP:TNT may still be the best solution, and in the future an more encyclopedic article can be created with proper sourcing and tone. Netherzone (talk) 03:34, 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 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Njie Ngenevu Divine[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful if we could find his Thai name, because based on this article he seems quite prominent so I think it is very likely that SIGCOV exists in the Thai language. EternalNomad (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only stats on him I could find were from 2013 and 2014 where he appeared in less than 20 combined matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsey40186 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 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. Had a BLPPROD but not a PROD in its history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sternberg[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. Most of his shows are only barely notable. Sources are primary or passing mentions. BLP PROD declined in 2011. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Carolina. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --evrik ^(talk) 16:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Transmission[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and unnotable factory. Veggies (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few hits in the Baltimore Sun about the plant closing. Seems to have been notable at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a bit of SIGCOV:^[1]^[2]^[3] This plant had closed in 2019 though the article had not seen a single edit between 2015 and the AfD nomination. I'm working on a rescue of this page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It now has 11 substantial references—that should clobber GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Thomas, Ken (October 31, 2007). "GM plant in Md. produces hybrid transmission systems". The Star-Democrat. Easton, Maryland. Associated Press. p. A10. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Walker, Andrea K. (April 24, 2009). "GM shutdown: White Marsh transmission plant to close 4–8 weeks". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 16. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Apperson, Jay (May 20, 1999). "GM plant planned in Balto. Co.: Truck transmissions would be built near White Marsh Mall". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 1A, 8A. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Comment This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".

"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references provided by Sammi Brie appear to be anything other than regurgitated company announcements or press releases. For example, the reference from the Star is a copy of this Vindactor article published the previous day and which is a Press Release. Similarly, the Baltimore Sun reference is similar to a number of other references (e.g. this published a day earlier) and is also based on a company announcement and information provided during a phone call with GM's CEO. Finally the last Baltimore Sun reference has no in-depth information on the company, it is an article based on information provided by "sources" and "company officials" pre-announcing the upcoming expected announcement that the factory would be built - fails CORPDEPTH and probably ORGIND. I've done a search myself and there are a lot of references but none meet CORPDEPTH so far. Right now I'm on a Delete but perhaps someone (or me) will turn up some references that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to be about a building, not a for-profit corporation; WP:NCORP is not the relevant notability guideline. I wholeheartedly agree with Sammi Brie that this is a clear WP:GNG pass based upon the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Likewise, this passes WP:NBUILDING, since significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources is well-established. The article passes the relevant notability guidelines and the nominator's statement that the article is wholly unsourced is no longer true given subsequent edits to the article. There is no persuasive policy-based reason to delete the article, while there are policy-based reasons to keep it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per WP:HEY which demonstrated that WP:GNG is met. Flibirigit (talk) 16:35, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USA Gonzo Games[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sourcing beyond what's already here. Both are from the same paper, and one is a human interest story about a casting call. Prod and redirect both contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 24 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?)} 01:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing in article is enough for WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 01:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how "local person to appear on X" is the kind of source sufficient for notability. Especially given that both sources are from the same paper, indicating a lack of notability outside one city. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the provided references are stretching the definition of significant, but beyond that they're both from the same source, so they don't meet the multiple criterion of GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kloer, Phil. "TV Review - "Gonzo Games" - 'Gonzo Games': The title tells all". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The review notes: "Yet another area where the United States lags behind Japan is in game shows based on physical pain and humiliation. Look at "Gonzo Games" - if you can bear to look at all - as a dubious contribution to the balance of payments. ... In the premiere episode, men get sprayed in the crotch and chest with high-powered fire hoses. ... The participants - ostensibly regular people - make the folks on "Family Feud" look like Alistair Cooke. After all that, the contestants who have endured the most get trophies instead of cash. Maybe they also get any medical bills covered."
2. Belcher, Walt (1991-10-06). "Contestants get messy on 'Gonzo Games'". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article note: "Debuting at 6:30 tonight on the USA cable network, "Gonzo Games" is a messy game show for adults. Contestants view for prizes through goofy competitions involving stunts and tests of endurance while host Mark Walberg cheers them on. ... In the American version, the stunts include events such as standing on a log while being hosed down, seeing how many clothespins can be fastened to the human body in five minutes, slithering through mud with hands and feet bound and other oddball competitions."
3. "Network Tapes Zany Events at Universal". Orlando Sentinel. 1991-09-19. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The article provides 150 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Producers for USA Network will shoot nine episodes of its new series USA Gonzo Games around the park on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Producers for USA Network will shoot nine episodes of its new series USA Gonzo Games around the park on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. ... Four episodes produced last weekend at Universal, for example, tested participants' skill at staying lodged in a chimney while being repeatedly doused in soot and water and in finishing a bed race in which they had to pick up 50-pound pillows at stations along the course - not to mention withstanding the pies that were thrown in their faces."
4. Belcher, Walt (1991-08-28). "USA to audition contestants for 'Gonzo Games'". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article discusses the endurance challenges in the show including: "Crocodile Crawl", "Hungry Mermaids", "Trained Seals", "Flopping Flamingos", "Face Juicer", and "Leap Frog".
5. "Cable Briefs". The Hollywood Reporter. 1991-10-07. ProQuest 2610433421.
  The article provides 102 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "USA Network is beginning production on a weekly series called "USA's Gonzo Games," which will feature "comedic physical and mental competition." On one segment, contestants in New York City's Battery Park — 50 men and 50 women, each wearing a mock Styrofoam crown — will hold up heavy torches as long as they can, in tribute to the Statue of Liberty in the background. New Yorker will love this one: In another contest, competitors with wrists and ankles loosely bound will inchworm through applesauce, grab an apple in their teeth and inch to a "Big Apple" goal. The one with the most apples wins."
6. DeFalco, Kim (1991-09-03). "Unusual fun draws folks to Gonzo Games tryouts". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "As part of Gonzo Games, a new half-hour game show scheduled for cable's USA Network, Johnson joined 65 participants as they auditioned for one of 26 spots in next week's elimination series. Johnson's event, "Trained Seals," was one of seven in which volunteers challenged their skill, strength and ability while competing for cash and prizes. ... Events included whimsical competitions such as the Crocodile Crawl and the Flamingo Flap, which were designed for Florida's atmosphere."
7. "USA begins work on 'Gonzo Games'". Pensacola News Journal. Gannett News Service. 1991-09-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The article notes: "Cable TV's USA Network has begun production on a weekly series called "USA's Gonzo Games," which will feature "comedic physical and mental competition." ... New Yorkers will love this one: ..."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. Gay, Verne (1991-11-03). "Game Shows In the Gonzo Era". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "And then there's USA's "Gonzo Games," which airs on Saturdays and Sundays at 6:30 p.m. This is a kinder, gentler version of a Japanese game show known as "Endurance," in which contestants are literally tortured. One of the Japanese stunts, for example, involves dragging contestants across gravel until they are too injured to continue. "Gonzo" does not go quite this far — although one stunt has the contestants stand on a barbecue grill until the pain forces them off."
  2. "Going gonzo is now a game". Orlando Sentinel. 1991-10-06. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.
    This article is in the "Preview" section of the newspaper. The article notes: "How many clothes pins can a person fasten on his body in five minutes? Why would anyone want to attach clothes pins to their body for five minutes. The answer lies in this new USA show. Each week, participants will face off against each other as they compete for the championship of silliness. Contestants will do most anything silly — such as scaling a pole and holding on as long as possible while being pelted with toy coconuts and squirted with water. Gonzo Games is filmed in Orlando at Universal Studios Florida."
  3. "Weird Game Shows". Uncle John's New & Improved Funniest Ever. San Diego: Portable Press. 2018. ISBN 978-1-68412-392-6. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
    The book note: "Gonzo Games (U.S.). A precursor to Fear Factor, this game show from the early 1990s was hosted by Mark A. Walberg (Antiques Roadshow). In one event, each contestant had to see how many clothespins they could stick on their face. In another, they were forced to stand on a hot barbecue grill until the pain was too unbearable to continue."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gonzo Games to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a newspapers.com search, and came up with pretty much the same stuff Cunard posted above. IMO, that is sufficient SIGCOV in INDEPENDENT RS (I found the Tampa Tribune articles especially significant) to pass WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough coverage in multiple reliable sources have been identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 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 keep. while there have been no further contributions since the nom was relisted, consensus appears clear in my view, particularly in light of the strength of sources located. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Quiz Kids Challenge[edit]

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

Found only a few passing mentions here and there, nothing of substance. Prod contested with addition of source Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 24 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?)} 01:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these strange game show articles you've nominated here seem to be weird copies of their Wikia/Fandom counterparts with words and phrases changed around a bit. ~XyNq^t_c 04:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given this article's age, I think they copied us and not vice-versa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, you're right. Didn't catch that ~XyNq^t_c 04:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I've been notified about a game show article being nominated for deletion and I can't help but notice there's a pattern here. I would really like to understand what the point of nominating all these articles for deletion really is. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just part of what I'm finding when combing through old, short, unsourced TV show articles. I found most of them through navboxes or category trees. If I don't find much of worth on Newspapers.com or ProQuest, I nominate it for prod or AFD. I'm not targeting game shows specifically, just any form of TV show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time believing what you’re saying though. There seems to be no legitimate reason to delete this or any of the other pages you’re nominating for deletion, other than just to do it. If the sourcing is an issue then I can get that, but it doesn’t warrant deleting the page. It just means that better sources can be located and should be located. I read “If I don’t find anything on Newspapers.com” (and I find it extremely difficult to believe that in this case you couldn’t find such information, because I did a Google search and found several pieces of pertinent info including the show’s NATPE ad in Broadcasting and at least one print ad promoting the show) as “my satisfaction is the only standard it should be held to” and that’s really not a good look. And quite frankly, you’ve done this before and your rep does kind of precede you. —-ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An advertisement is not a reliable source for Wikipedia standards. Neither are IMDb, Wikia, personal fan sites, or YouTube uploads of the show. A search for "Quiz Kids Challenge" "Jonathan Prince" only gives me 29 hits on newspapers.com, most of which seem to be regurgitations of the same press release. The same search on ProQuest yields only three hits, of which two are just glancing mentions in articles otherwise focused on other TV shows. Those two hits combined do not dedicate more than one or two sentences to the work. The standards I'm holding it to are WP:GNG and WP:RS, which are clearly not my own standards. We can confirm the show existed and was hosted by Jonathan Prince, but precious little else. Also, I hardly think I'm doing it "just to do it" if several other of my AFDs have been closed as "delete". Only a couple have even been game shows, so I don't know why you're so hung up on that. tl;dr: Focus on the nomination, not the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am focusing on the nomination, and as far as I’m concerned it’s not a very strong nomination. —-ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Loynd, Ray (1990-09-24). "Youth vs. Experience in New 'Quiz Kids': Television: Afternoon Game Show on Channel 13 Is a 50th Anniversary Spinoff of Radio's 'Quiz Kids.'". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The article notes: "Whisked to a sound stage at KTLA/Hollywood Center Studios, she was nervous as she waited for the cameras to roll on the set of the new syndicated game show, “The Quiz Kids Challenge.” She was a black girl in celebrity-land for the first time, teamed up with two white boys from L.A. magnet schools in a “Jeopardy!"-inspired game show that tests kids against adults. ... These competitors are featured at 3:30 p.m. daily this week on the KCOP Channel 13 daytime strip. New contestants appear each week against different adults. Since this Guber-Peters syndicated show debuted Sept. 10, the kids have been winning 60% of the time in a duel of smarts, speed and strategy. The production is a 50th-anniversary spinoff of the popular “Quiz Kids” NBC radio show from Chicago (1940-53). There were later, short-lived TV “Quiz Kids,” but youth was never matched against experience until now. ... The adults, who must pass the same test the kids take to make the show, look blank. The juvenile brain trust takes the pot."
2. Dempsey, John (1989-10-25). "Guber-Peters preps 'Quiz Kids Challenge,' latest 'Jeopardy'-inspired syndie pilot". Variety. Vol. 337, no. 4. p. 47. ProQuest 1438503408.
  The article notes: "If the new "Quiz Kids Challenge" goes to series (the show would start in the fall of 1990), it'll be a lot different from the golden oldie. Wald says the planned budget for the new version is $5 million for 35 weeks of originals, or about $140,000 a week, which puts it in the expensive category for series of this type. The sets Barris is building at the Sunset Gower Studios in Los Angeles, where the producers will tape three pilot half-hours, will be fairly elaborate, according to Wald. Barris taped the pilot Oct. 24. ... There's at least one link between the old and the new "Quiz Kids" shows: Geoffrey Cowan, one of the three executive producers for Barris, is the son of the late Lou Cowan, who packaged the original show."
3. Amarante, Joe (1990-06-26). "Reporters compete against whiz kids". New Haven Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The article notes: "Sunday, 4:45 p.m. It's warm outside the Science Museum in West Hartford. I'm sitting next to a steel whale at a table with three newspaper colleagues. We are waiting to face off against four kids who are vying for a free trip to Los Angeles to compete in a new game show called "The Quiz Kids Challenge." We're sure the little goobers are going to kick our adult butts. WVIT-30 has been auditioning 600 state kids for three days and now the number is down to 16 little overachievers. ... No harm done for the kids though. The four ultimate winners have secretly been determined by the producers and WVIT moments before our little match. But contestants haven't been told yet. This round of the game is, in effect, a publicity stunt. But then, what TV event isn't a publicity stunt in the '90s?"
4. Brennan, Steve (1990-09-24). "'Quiz Kids' loses key Atlanta slot". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 314, no. 19. pp. 3, 22. ProQuest 2610421815.
  The article notes: ""The Quiz Kids Challenge," the new first-run game show from Guber-Peters Television, has been bumped from its 7:30 p.m. access slot on WXIA-TV in Atlanta, making it the first of the five new syndicated game shows to lose an important time period. ... Industry analyst Tom Bumbera, vp director of programming at Seltel, the station rep firm, pointed to the speed with which the station executives pulled the trigger on the "Quiz Kids," suggesting that this is probably the beginning of a series of early-season changes as new programs fail to reach expectations. ... "Quiz Kids" averaged a 4.8 rating/9 share on the Atlanta station up to Wednesday of last week, coming out of its NBC News lead-in average of 7.3/14 for the same period, according to unweighted data from A.C. Nielsen Co."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Adams, Debra (1990-11-09). "Student in national eye on TV game show". Hartford Courant. ProQuest 1723543273.
    The article notes: "A clever eighth-grader at Quirk Middle School has been a familiar face this week: Justin Long, 13, has made a weeklong appearance on the NBC game show Quiz Kids Challenge. Justin was one of four Connecticut students selected for the show among 600 applicants. He eased through a written test that required the youngsters to answer 20 questions in five minutes and pass an oral exam and an interview. He then was chosen to fly to California."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Quiz Kids Challenge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Jump[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile game, I couldn't find reliable, independent sources that significantly cover it. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Merko (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merko (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I cannot find anything with WP:VG/S's search, beyond a few directory entries, most of which are actually hits for clones/similar named. No coverage found, no reviews at all on Metacritic to look into. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and rationales offered by other editors. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do to a lack of reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shout out to @Such-change47: for making something of this article. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Goes (game show)[edit]

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

First source is just a blurb about the network that only mentions the show in passing. Second is valid, but I could find nothing better. If the network doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, then how can the show possibly be notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 24 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?)} 01:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations are enough for WP:GNG. Assessing the game show based on the notability of the network is the same as saying Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer isn't notable because the album it was released on doesn't have an article, and neither does the artist (Elmo & Patsy). The group redirects to Elmo Shropshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldd23 (talk • contribs)

You know damn well WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. There are two sources, one of which only dedicates a sentence to the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying KEEP because of the other article. I was just pointing out that you are saying the show isn't notable because the network isn't. Which is not a valid argument to delete. I was merely pointing out that other things that are 'children' of a larger 'parent' are notable, even if the parent isn't. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how the citations are sufficient if one is barely about the show at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XyNq: I've seen you in other TV AFDs. What do you think here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: This one is a bit tough. I'd like to see more sources being used for this article. Only two sources is sort of stretching the concept of "widespread" coverage. My personal opinion on these obscure game show articles is that they're probably better off on Wikia, but you can take that with a grain of salt. ~XyNq^t_c 05:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the network has its own Wiki page under Playboy TV, Escapade just got bought/rebranded to Playboy Channel. The show ran continuously through the switch, infobox makes it seems like it jumped network. You can't expect the internet to have much from the 80s. Regardless of that The News Journal, Olathe News, Tampa Bay Times & Associated Press all have coverage. AP article ran in multiple papers nation wide(saw over half dozen on newspapers.com). The first article cited does not just mention show in passing, and significantly more than just a sentence. Nearly the entire first column is about the show, which is nearly half the article. Either way nearly 10 years on air, who knows what else is out there offline, but WP:GNG shown to pass with just the stuff available online. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am satisfied the sources found by other nominators demonstrate significant coverage and notability standards. MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now expanded the article to include all four sources found by @WikiVirusC. Thanks for finding these. The article is now significantly improved and I would love for @TenPoundHammer to please consider whether they would please withdraw their nomination now these sources are not only located, but even added to the article. MaxnaCarter (talk) 03:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damodar Mall[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, lack of in-depth coverarge in independent RS.A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google to support inclusion on Wikipedia, non-notable subject. Sort of a promotional page. IrishOsita (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 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. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trashed (game show)[edit]

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

Prod contested with source, but source is just a PR blurb. Nothing better found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:08, 24 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?)} 01:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG - only one source available. ~XyNq^t_c 04:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- additional source from AV Club [4] makes two with the included source. matt91486 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other source is a press release, though. And is a listicle from AV Club really a RS? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AV Club article is not a listicle. matt91486 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "MTV consumer guide: Trashed". The Village Voice. 1994-06-07. p. 46. ProQuest 232165712.
  The review gives the TV show a "C Minus" rating. The review notes: "On this new game show "that breaks mementoes and memories into itty bitty pieces," two pairs of youthful contestants risk their own treasured possessions—bowling shoes, prom dresses, remote controls—against their knowledge of pop culture trivia. Winners get prizes, losers get their stuff destroyed in as gruesome a way as possible. ... There might be a certain voyeuristic kick to this, but the questions are too easy to bother playing along at home. Back in the MTV studio, one person's gimme is another's brutal stumper."
2. Blevins, Joe (2015-08-03). "MTV's Trashed was a hotbed of future comedy talent". The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The article notes: "Case in point: the highly-caffeinated game show Trashed, which lasted five crazy, demolition-filled months back in 1994. Essentially a bald-faced ripoff of MTV’s previous hit, Remote Control, Trashed pitted two teams of contestants against one another to answer insultingly easy pop culture questions in a debris-strewn, junkyard-themed set. The show’s gimmick was that each team had brought along several treasured personal possessions—color TV sets, stereos, prom dresses, cassette collections—which could potentially be “trashed” if its members did not correctly answer enough queries about sitcoms and pop songs."
3. "MTV game show 'Trashed'". Wisconsin State Journal. 1994-02-06. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Willing to risk your most prized possessions for a chance to WIN BIG? MTV's newest game show, "Trashed," dares high roller contestants to give up all their worldly possessions, and then try to win them back. ... "Trashed" pits two teams of friends against each other, as they compete to save their yearbooks, trophies, and other personal treasures from total destruction."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Cerone, Daniel (1994-06-12). "Cover Story: After All, Life Isn't Just a Video: MTV, the channel that made its name with wall-to-wall music videos, has become a full-service 'lifestyle network,' much to the consternation of the big record companies, which are teaming up to launch their own channel". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Then there's a game show ("Trashed") in which contestants compete to destroy each other's property."
  2. Nedeff, Adam (2014). This Day in Game Show History- 365 Commemorations and Celebrations, Vol. 3: July Through September. Duncan, Oklahoma: BearManor Media. ISBN 978-1-59393-571-9. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Trashed (1994): Chris Hardwick hosted this one as well. Teams of contestants brought in cherished personal possessions and risked them for a chance at big prizes. If a team failed to meet a challenge by answering the required questions, "The Trasher," Mark Fite, would destroy their belongings."
  3. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2007) [1979]. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 1421. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Google Books.
    The book notes that Trashed premiered February 14, 1994, was produced in 1994 (50 episodes), was 30 minutes, was a quiz/audience participation show, was hosted by Chris Hardwick, and was broadcast on MTV. The book notes: "In this early-evening game show two teams of roommates competed to save their worldly possessions from total destruction."
  4. Crane, Jonathan Lake (1994). Terror and Everyday Life: Singular Moments in the History of the Horror Film. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publishing. p. 155. ISBN 0-8039-5848-X. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "In Trashed, a new MTV show, contestants answer trivia questions in order to see their opponents' favorite possessions destroyed. College diplomas, concert memorabilia, special presents from Mom, and the like are blown up, chainsawed, blowtorched, and so forth as the players battle to win."
  5. Russell, Deborah (1993-09-04). "Viacom's Interaction; ICTV Setting The Tone". Billboard. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Google Books.
    The article notes: "MTV will debut its new game show, "Trashed," in October. Contestants allow MTV into their homes, where their possessions are seized, only to be regained or demolished through the course of the competition. One round, titled "Up Yours," gives the losing team an opportunity to gain points by answering personal questions about roommates."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trashed to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Village Voice source was a good pull! matt91486 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as multiple reliable sources coverage has been identified in this discussion such as significant coverage in Village Voice, AV Club, and newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Treasures[edit]

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

Only one source found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:07, 24 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?)} 01:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not to a level to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Newport, Cal (2012). So Good They Can't Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love. New York: Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4555-0910-2. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Google Books.
  The book has a section titled "American Treasures". The book notes: "I first encountered Kirk French while watching the Discovery Channel. During a commercial break, I saw an ad for the network's newest show. It was called American Treasures. The spot showed a pair of young archaeologists, dressed in jeans and battered work shirts, driving around the American backcountry in an old Ford-F150, helping people determine the historical significance of their family heirlooms. The hosts, who were revealed to be the archaeologists Kirk French and Jason De León, seemed loud and energetic and enjoying the hell out of what they were doing. It was like Antiques Roadshow, but with considerably more drinking and cursing. ... I was hooked. To understand the appeal of American Treasures, you must understand its competition. At the time, cable TV ..."
2. Becherer, Lauren (2011-04-19). "From teaching to treasure hunting". The Daily of the University of Washington. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The article notes: "This opportunity was the chance to co-host the Discovery Channel show "American Treasures" with his close friend, Kirk French. The idea of the show is to respond to calls from people around the country who believe they have an item of historical or cultural significance. The duo then travels to that person's home to research the item and give advice about preservation. ... Production companies often look for archaeologists and anthropologists to do different types of shows, so French sent in a reel with the idea for "American Treasures." The company liked it, and French knew he would only do the show if De Leon was the other co-host. The two anthropologists filmed for 80 days, traveling around the country to respond to calls from people of all walks of life who own an object that may be of significance. They would travel to observe each item, get to know the owner, and then fly back home for a few days to conduct research."
3. Moffitt, Katie (2011-02-22). "PSU anthropologist jumps at chance to bring passion to television". Centre Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
  The article notes: "He never thought it would inspire his own 10-episode series on The Discovery Channel called "American Treasures," which premieres tonight at 10. ... The truck's first stop, the site of the first "American Treasures" episode, is in French's home state of Texas. There they begin a cross-country adventure examining artifacts that members of the public think have historical significance. ... "Artifact or Fiction" was the original name of the show, but just weeks before the show's air date, The Discovery Channel changed it to "American Treasures," much to the dismay of French and De Leon."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Albert, Linda Braden (2011-03-05). "Hometown 'treasure': Lendel Abbott featured on Discovery Channel". The Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
    The article notes: "Discovery became aware of the box through this story and contacted Abbott about being featured on an upcoming American Treasures episode which will likely air in mid- to late-March. Filming took place in December."
  2. Shattuck, Kathryn (2011-02-22). "What's On Today". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
    The article notes: "10 P.M. (Discovery) AMERICAN TREASURES The archaeology professors Kirk French and Jason De Le?above from left, drive cross-country in their pickup to consult with ordinary folks who think they possess items with historical significance. In this series premiere, the men try to get at the truth behind a rare gun said to have been owned by the outlaw John Wesley Hardin and a suit connected to Bonnie and Clyde."
  3. McDonough, Kevin (2011-02-22). "Television / Tune in Tonight / 'Lens' explores life of a literary giant". The Press of Atlantic City. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
    The article notes: ""American Treasures" (10 p.m., Discovery) takes a page or two from "Antiques Roadshow" and "History Detectives," celebrating interesting artifacts and providing some stories and historical context to every item discovered. Along the way, hosts Dr. Jason De Leon and Dr. Kirk French look at a trumpet that may have belonged to Louis Armstrong, Al Capone's papers and a steam whistle some claim was salvaged from Pearl Harbor."
  4. Hibberd, James (2010-12-16). "Discovery Orders Hidden Treasure Reality Shows, Renews Three Others". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.
    The article notes: "The network has ordered Desert Car Kings, about an Arizona family that restores classic vehicles, and Treasure Nation (working title), about an archaeologist and anthropologist duo who travel the country to find overlooked artifacts. ... Treasure starts Feb. 15 and stars self-proclaimed “blue-collar scholars” Kirk French and Jason DeLeon, who find everything from antique weaponry and ancient Mayan artifacts to claims of Biblical relics in suburban backyards."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow American Treasures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep While not the best of sources, I think it's just enough to push it into notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable sources coverage has been identified in this discussion including significant book coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G3: Vandalism / CSD G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haleluya Tesfamariam[edit]

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

i can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to be - looks like a random essay or school assignment but it sure isn't encyclopedic. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G1, at least in spirit, if not in letter. (Okay then, if there's no suitable db category, then just plain vanilla delete.) One could of course go for !draftify, but I don't even know what we could expect to come out the other end. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, article lacking sufficient content to identify what the sneck its meant to be about.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Seems like it was maybe an ill-thought school assignment or attempt to do one. Skynxnex (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incomprehensible. There are a content issue and a conduct issue. The content issue is whether this should exist. It should not. The conduct issue is whether the editor should be editing. AFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Random unlinked sections - just confusing and not notable as anything. KylieTastic (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this exactly? Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. Moved back to draftspace by author. ✗plicit 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kyhara Tay[edit]

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

while tragic, it's almost par for the course and run of the mill news in the US. It doesn't appear to have gained much lasting national attention and I doubt it will as it's still an ongoing situation. Perhaps if it gets more coverage later, we can revisit but it doesn't appear to be the case now. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Send back to draft if possible, I did try to tell them not to move it to mainspace for this very reason, but I don't know if they understood what I meant. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the creator has reverted their move to mainspace, should this be closed off now? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wherwell Primary School[edit]

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

AlexandruAAlu (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete elementary schools are very rarely notable and this one does not appear to have any significant coverage. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that elementary schools are rarely notable, and this one does not seem to be an exception. Fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. CT55555 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally, I would A7 it, but educational institutions are exempt from that rule. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero secondary sources. No evidence of notability per WP:NSCHOOL. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippines Football League clubs[edit]

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

I don't see the point to this article, it's completely unsourced and when asked at WT:Football it was noted that majority of this is already covered by Philippines_Football_League#Clubs. Hence, this is duplicate content which is not needed. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philippines_Football_League#Clubs. The important information is already covered there, and I don't see anything from this article worth merging there. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other article only list 7 teams. This one list all of them. All have links to their own articles, so it is a valid navigational and information list. Dream Focus 16:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have List of Premier League clubs, List of Ligue 1 clubs etc. - so why is this any different? Yes it needs some sources (easy to find) and tidy up, but that's not a reason to delete. Giant Snowman 19:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have similar lists for many football teams. I am sure sources can be found if someone looks. Samanthany (talk) 21:23, 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 Land of Oz#Location. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonestica[edit]

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

No reliable third-party sources to meet WP:NOTABILITY. There wasn't anything significant when checking WP:BEFORE that wasn't in-universe details. Primary research isn't enough, and nor are officially authorized guides. (The Land of Oz would meet our policies but this does not.) Jontesta (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, plus is just an exhaustive list of unimportant in-universe things that doesn't really belong in an article. ~XyNq^t_c 14:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. This serves as the main location of L. Frank Baum's franchise with the Land of Oz being one of the notable locations. Also, Phreex currently redirects to Nonestica last I checked and where would it be redirected to if the outcome is delete. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Land_of_Oz#Location which arguably needs WP:TNT approach or similar, but one problem at a time. One article about a fictional universe is generally enough, very few fictional worlds have received significant coverage sufficient to have a dedicated geography article (or several), and sourcing here does not suggest this is the case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Baum used this setting for many of his literary works besides the Oz books, so it warrants a separate article. Cf. other examples of separate articles for fictional countries as well as their larger settings: The Shire and Middle-earth or Ankh-Morpork and Discworld (world). Or perhaps Rename to "Nonestic Ocean" since many of the references are to islands, and that is a name that Baum himself used. Goustien (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Land_of_Oz#Location per Piotrus - While Oz may only have been a single "country" on the landmass, it is by and far the most notable, and thus its article would be the proper place to have a brief discussion of the overall setting. Neither of the Keep arguments above address the fact that there are basically no viable sources in the article to indicate independent notability, and the vast bulk of this article is trivial, unsourced plot information. There is also the fact that, as the article even states, the name has never been an "official" name for the landmass, and Baum never used the term. The section in Land_of_Oz#Location similarly notes that this is an "unofficial" fan term for the location. Rorshacma (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect per Rorshacma. People arguing to preserve the content can't verify any of it, and this topic doesn't meet the WP:GNG. If someone thought the Land of Oz was a valid redirect target, I think there's enough of a relationship here. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 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 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Health Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. An assessment of the sources below shows very few WP:ORGCRIT-level sources in the article, while an online search comes up with a similar lack.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward NCORP?
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
https://e27.co/news-roundup-asias-digital-health-company-hello-health-launches-in-the-philippines-under-hello-doctor-20200528/	? The independence of e27's reporting is somewhat suspect.	e27 is not a reliable news website	Article is about a product of Hello Health group	✘ No
https://news.galengrowth.com/press-release/hello-health-group-wins-galen-growths-most-innovative-healthtech-startup-in-asia-award/	Press releease.	It's a press release.	Unsurprisingly, the press release indeed covers the company's activities significantly.	✘ No
https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/asia/rise-digital-health-asia	? It's an interview with one person, though it's unclear to me if that person has financial ties to this company.	? It's not clear to me that the interview subject is an SME.	Hello Health Group is mentioned in one sentence.	✘ No
https://news.galengrowth.com/asia-pacific/healthtech-startup-hello-health-group-empowering-millions-consumers-across-asia-informed-health-decisions/	~ The website appears to be either a trade publication or a business intelligence website specific to a sector, which makes financial COI likely.	The piece is categorized as opinion, so it does not contribute towards notability.	The coverage is mostly focused on the CEO, though there's some substantial coverage of the company in that context.	✘ No
https://e27.co/singapores-hello-health-group-acquires-marry-network-ringier-vietnam-20190807/	The independence of e27's reporting is somewhat suspect. Content seems to be based on a corporate press release.	e27 is not a reliable news website.	~ It covers that a company was acquired, but it doesn't really cover Hello Health Group substantially.	✘ No
https://e27.co/singapores-hello-health-group-raises-us1-5m-bring-healthcare-information-average-southeast-asian-20160629/	The independence of e27's reporting is somewhat suspect. Content seems to be based on a corporate press release.	e27 is not a reliable news website.	~ It covers the fundraising, but the depth is not all that substantial with respect to the company itself.	✘ No
https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/startups/hello-health-group-closes-us15mil-seed-round	The material in the article is based on a corporate press release.	Site seems like an online newsorg	~ It covers the fundraising, but the depth is not all that substantial with respect to the company itself.	✘ No
https://www.finsmes.com/2016/06/healthcare-knowledge-platform-hello-health-secures-1-5m-in-funding.html	Author of the piece is not listed, though this appears to be based off of a press release.	It's a blog.	~ It covers the fundraising, but the depth is not all that substantial with respect to the company itself.	✘ No
https://www.mmtimes.com/news/health-care-just-click-away.html	Seems like an established WP:NEWSORG with editorial independence.	General issues with press freedom in Myanmar don't impact reliability for this topic.	Describes the company in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/business-life/2020/06/03/2018190/hello-health-launches-9th-health-care-platform-philippines	Marked as "sponsored content".	It's an advertisement that is not subject to ordinary fact-checking procedures.	Describes the company's activities substantially.	✘ No
https://news.galengrowth.com/asia-pacific/south-east-asia/hello-health-launches-its-9th-country-with-the-launch-of-hello-doctor-in-the-philippines/	Marked as a press release.	It's a press release.	Describes the company's activities substantially.	✘ No
Table created using {{source assess table}}

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Singapore. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent source analysis by Mhawk10. A search turns up no new sources that aren't sponsored or based on similar press releases, so NCORP is not met. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a great analysis of the sources by Mhawk10. SWinxy (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Was BLPPROD'd but not PROD'd in the past. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Jadeja Motwani[edit]

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

No significant coverage in media, excluding churnalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and a couple of interviews (5, 6; also consult WP:RSP for reliability of Entrepreneur India). Notability is not inheritable from her (late) husband either. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

288 (number)[edit]

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

Appears to fail the general notability guideline for numbers Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could use some citations, I don't think one number is better than another. Oaktree b (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NUMBER#Integers. The article satisfies criterion 1 by describing (more than) three unrelated interesting mathematical properties, and criterion 3 by appearing in What's Special About This Number?. Certes (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs sourcing but WP:DINC. There are plenty of interesting and sourceable mathematical properties for this number, starting with it being superfactorial, as well as some mysticism coming from its high number of factors. See e.g. Potter, Robert D. (February 12, 1938), "Building blocks of life ruled by the number 288: This number and its multiples found everywhere in groupings of amino acids to form proteins", The Science News-Letter, 33 (7): 99–100, doi:10.2307/3914385, JSTOR 3914385. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Williams (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Can't find any independent coverage online, apart from a few mentions on music blogs. Storchy (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Storchy (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Missouri, and Tennessee. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this, no idea how reliable it is https://americansongwriter.com/video-premiere-annie-williams-closer/ CT55555 (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the article is based on promo, I found one review for her self-released album/EP, and while American Songwriter seems fine as a source, it is not in-depth and more of an announcement about the albums and a video. Beccaynr (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don’t delve into in-depth coverage and there just isn’t enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, per nom. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of SIGCOV. There are a few trivial mentions. Jacona (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no action. Page was never tagged with AFD template and was just redirected anyway. ✗plicit 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. International[edit]

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

Currently the location of a content dispute. I don't think this article is notable. Propose just redirecting to Mister International or deleting. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Supporting per mon, which is what User:Finngall did at 13:41, 31 May 2022 with Special:Diff/1090807852.‎ Skynxnex (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Singapore. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Irvin Dally[edit]

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

Highly promotional article on non-notable musician, doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Can't find any independent coverage online, apart from this appearance on university radio station CapRadio [5]. Storchy (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Storchy (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.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.IrishOsita (talk) 02:59, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 12:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zokie of Planet Ruby[edit]

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

Not notable yet, one source is a mere mention. Might well become notable once it materializes, but this is too soon. Fram (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Canada, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move page to my sandbox: True. Although I heard it was set to premiere in July of this year, I would put in my sandbox for now, and allow others to edit it. Until maybe later in June or I don't know. VictorRocks (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support draftificaiton per comments above. WP:TOOSOON. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per VictorRocks' request. Currently not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per request. There's a good (but not inevitable) chance that this will clear the bar once it premieres, but there just isn't enough coverage yet as of today. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - subject has the potential to become an article, but WP:TOOSOON at the moment. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per good faith request to do so until further developments arise per WP:NTV recommendations. You never really know when things might go into development hell. Drafts are typically more accessible to other editors in Draft space than User space. -2pou (talk) 00:53, 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 speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Marcum (hoax)[edit]

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

Unsure about the sourcing here. I do not think there is enough for a stand-alone. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOte at their talk page the creator has asked how to delete, so maybe CSD now? Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the creator and wanting it to be deleted asap. Ian Tin (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I use this: Template:Db-author? Ian Tin (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 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 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special Operations Executive in popular culture[edit]

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

This articles as the same problems as the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Force in popular culture Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Intelligence Agency in popular culture and like. Mainly: "mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft." Like them, it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. This just more of the mostly unreferenced trivia (in fact, this is worse than many similar lists, as it lists entries without even explaining their relevance, ex. "Charlotte Gray, (2001). Based on a novel by Sebastian Faulks."). The tiny amount of prose content is in the lead is irrelevant. This type of content is not encyclopedic - it's pure OR that belongs at https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/CIA . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, Popular culture, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the other recently deleted articles on defense and military related departments in popular culture noted in the nomination, this is nothing but a list of non-notable trivia. There is no actual discussion of the overall topic. Even the one seemingly decent source in the lead is not actually on the topic, being instead on the real world SOE with that single quoted sentence (which itself is just an aside) being the only thing remotely mentioning popular culture. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There aren't reliable independent sources to verify the WP:NOTABILITY of this topic. This is pure WP:OR, which says that a topic without reliable independent sources should not have an article about it. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Sunday#2005–2009. ✗plicit 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kunai Den[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I tried to improve the article some months ago but I couldn't find enough secondary sources. - Xexerss (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Sunday#2005–2009 per nom; fails NBOOK/GNG. Link20XX (talk) 23:57, 17 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, MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superstars of Dance[edit]

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

Notability concerns. This competition reality show ran for one season, five episodes, and doesn't seem to have launched any dance careers. The bloated episode "summaries" are play-by-play recaps. Doesn't merit the amount of detailed coverage it's been given. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found this [6] and this [7] DonaldD23 talk to me 13:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG passes with sources already in article, sources found by Donaldd23, Common Sense Media review, coverage by New York Daily News via AP, Hollywood reporter, and Entertainment Weekly. Premiere got 10 million viewers and 2nd for the night. There are no notability concerns in my book. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets the GNG with the sources listed. matt91486 (talk) 17:21, 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 13:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Strikes Back: Judgment Day[edit]

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

A game of relative obscurity whose raison d'être is seeking attention by exploitation and outrage. Not only do I think this game can be ignored and brushed off as not notable and insignificant, owing to the lack of sources, but our resources would be better used elsewhere on the site. All this page serves is introducing the reader to the fringest of viewpoints that even Rock, Paper, Shotgun wants to avoid covering. There is a reason the media in general used to do that to attention-seeking subjects not worthy of attention.

This is not a critique of the article, though, nor am I insulting its editors. I just think that articles about extremism should be held to high notability standards. Free Media Kid$ 02:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid$ 02:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There seems to be a few other pages of "shock" games like this one that are listed in this article's "see also" section, but I agree that these aren't really notable for anything other than shock value. ~XyNq^t_c 04:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newsweek is used as a source, but is non-reliable since around 2013 I believe, so we aren't left with much. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent coverage to establish WP:NOTABILITY for this topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Das[edit]

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

Vipin Das

Film director who does not satisfy creative notability or general notability. There already was an AFD in March 2022. I have not seen the deleted article, so am not tagging this article for G4, but am noting that there does not appear to have been any substantial change. The authors attempted to game the title with an unnecessary disambiguation, which has been removed. The references are interviews, press releases, and a review of a movie (which is about the movie).

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	thenewsminute.com	An interview	No	Yes		No
2	cinemaexpress.com	Another interview	No	Yes		No
3	timesofindia.com	A review of a movie	Yes	Not about the subject	No	Yes
4	thehindu.com	An interview with the subject	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	thenewsminute.com	A press release about a movie	No	Yes		No
6	timesofindia.com	Advertisement for a movie	No	No	No	No
7	indianexpress.com	An article about a movie	Yes	Not about the subject		Yes

The subject wasn’t notable two months ago, and not much has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Kerala. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom as clearly non-notable (quite apart from other issues). And thank-you to the nommer for providing such a useful source analysis. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to speedy delete, now that some of the other issues are out in the open. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:NCREATIVE/WP:NFILMMAKER just like Das failed last time. Obvious sockery. Strongly suggest salting to seek to prevent pointless re-creation. Agree with nom on reference analysis. Suggest Speedy because this is, surely, the re-creation of an article deleted at a prior discussion. Pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuhailShaji786 potentially an article created by a block evading editor, too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed attempt at advertising by what I think is a paid spammer, and indeed nothing has changed in the two months. G5 may also be applicable, per the linked SPI. Java Hurricane 11:29, 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 14:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews and Advances in Chemistry[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "some articles are indexed by CAS, I think this warrants a discussion at Afd if there is concern about notability." CAS is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the journal has been around since 2011, it hasn't been included in any valued databases (like, Scopus and Web of Science). Hence, it fails WP:NJournals. ~ Nanosci (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The journal corresponds Criterion 2 2b) of WP:NJournals: finding citations to the journal are possible via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as general services like Google Scholar or field-specific services like Chemical Abstracts. If a journal meets at list one of the criteria of WP:NJournals it qualifies for a stand-alone article. It is suggested to decline deletion: the main principles of WP:NJournals should be taken into account. Yashin-n (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any journal will have a smattering of citations, that is to be expected even from low-quality predatory journals. There's no indication that this goes beyond that. --Randykitty (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An Editorial board of highly reputable scientists from across the world, including many highly cited (e.g. Valery Fokin >48,000 h-78 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=P7ep2L8AAAAJ), Yuri Gogotsi >184,000 h=195 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Tobmw7EAAAAJ, Alexander Kabanov >44,000 h=107 https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PTouqvoAAAAJ&hl=en, Vadim Gladyshev >43,000 h=116 https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=CosBFrUAAAAJ ) The full list of the editors at Springer website https://www.springer.com/journal/13392/editors Lacyhaviz (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The indexing services covering it are listed here (bottom of page). I don't know which ones count as "Selective" - I thought CAS was, so am clearly out of my depth. PamD 09:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so - AFAIK they list anything and everything with a "chemical" tag in a published journal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on our standard indexing criterion. Here is the list of indexes stated by the journal:

Baidu

CLOCKSS

CNKI

CNPIEC

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)

Dimensions

EBSCO Discovery Service

Google Scholar

Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST)

Naver

OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service

Portico

ProQuest-ExLibris Primo

ProQuest-ExLibris Summon

Semantic Scholar

TD Net Discovery Service

WTI AG

Wanfang

- I'm not familiar with all of them, but none of the names we generally look for are in this list. (I'm guessing "Baidu" is Baidu's equivalent to Scholar...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd suggest a redirect to Pleiades Publishing, but since that doesn't exist, deletion is the way to go. I will note here that Pleiades Publishing journals have often a Russian history, which often makes it worth looking for Russian sources on the subject, but I don't speak Russian. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Football in Tuvalu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Cup[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in Tuvalu as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:40, 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 no consensus. ✗plicit 03:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization which lacks reliable third party sources. Article reads in a rather promotional/advertising tone. Tinton5 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added multiple reliable sources. It just needed a clean up. As mentioned in talk page, CMT Association is quite notable in the technical analysis space. I have re-written it so there's no promotional language, and removed all the content pasted by previous CMT staff. I'll continue monitor this space and will revert any attempt by CMT Association to advertise. Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per reason above, if no objection, I'll also remove the citation template. Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fintor interested to hear your thoughts as you previously contributed to multiple finance-related articles.Kazuha1029 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic reading[edit]

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

Viral phenomena, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. I don't see evidence of enduring notability for this viral trend, so I think that the page should be deleted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Internet. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we have evidence it does not have lasting effect. There have been many clones created in spite of the patents and trademarks of the original, so even if the original becomes obsolete it may have triggered a larger trend in web accessibility features. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If X is not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, and there has not been anything further to give X enduring significance, then X is is simply not notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we cannot assume that something will exist in the future that does not now exist based on mere assertion. The guideline is clear. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, there not enough WP:SIGCOV. --mikeu ^talk 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To justify an article, we'd need credible independent scientific evidence that this works. Otherwise it is just a marketing campaign... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking in significant coverage, no actual scientific evidence, no press attention to this marketing gimmick. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV, a few minor stories highlighting a few viral facebook posts and stuff like that, but no sources seem to discuss the method itself. --Jayron 32 18:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article should explain why its subject is notable, and this article does not contain enough information to explain what reliable sources say about the technology. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - it is WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR. This is a classic not yet ready for prime time invention. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 03:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cronomoon[edit]

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. A combination of wp:NOR/ wp:notability / Wikipedia is not the place to try to establish / promote new terms. Article says that these are not known to exist. And the only sources in the article or that I could find in a search on the term "Cronomoon" all have the same one person as the/a author. North8000 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draft per WP:NEO. The entire article is based on a single paper by Mario Sucerquia which admits that they invented the name. I'm not opposed to a future article if other astronomers start using it, but it is WP:TOOSOON. --mikeu ^talk 18:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify TOOSOON.★Trekker (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is WP:TOOSOON since this term is not in widespread use. Aldebarium (talk) 23:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriy Samofalov[edit]

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

Non-notable military person. No military awards grant presumption of notability since deprecation of WP:SOLDIER. Could not find any sources independent of Ukrainian government (0 hits for Ukrainian name on Google News). (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hero of Ukraine, the highest award of what is now a very significant country, clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. The statement that No military awards grant presumption of notability since deprecation of WP:SOLDIER is therefore simply not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passage of WP:ANYBIO does not mean this person is actually notable. ANYBIO is a guideline saying that the criterion makes a person likely to be notable. Nothing is known about this person other than the fact that he received the award, we don't even know what he did in battle to receive the award, or even anything else about him. ~XyNq^t_c 18:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need multiple sorces saying substantive things about people to show notability. Considering how widely the hero of Ukraine article is given, I do not think it meets what is being invoked by the any bio criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if Hero of Ukraine meets WP:ANYBIO #1 that doesn't warrant a page as WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Seems more suitable for inclusion in List of Heroes of Ukraine. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per norm. Does not meet notability guidelines. Cannot boot strap on notability through winning an award. And it’s not shown through multiple RS sources that this person has won an award. Kierzek (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He appears to be mentioned in this book in the context of 1989 mine strikes, and later in the context of Donetsk events in 2014. Are we sure that there isn't WP:SIGCOV? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a clear delete, but unclear whether the source Mhawk10 identified has been discussed by earlier contributors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 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. ✗plicit 13:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbridge Foam Corporation[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a company of no notability. When deprodded two years ago by Dr kiwano the company was supposed to be on the verge of great notability due to the COVID situation. That notability has not materialised. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ontario. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno that I'd go so far as to say it was on the verge of _great_ notability (nor would I have at the time); it had just been mentioned in a few news articles. At this point I wouldn't consider it to be notable enough to warrant its own article (though it may still bear some mention elsewhere -- e.g. in a timeline of trade restrictions on N95 masks early in the COVID pandemic). Dr kiwano (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus around "mentioning elsewhere" and if so, where
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing much found for sources, there was a fire in the factory a while ago, rest are press releases. 11:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Feel free to re-nominate for more discussion, but another week won't help here. Star Mississippi 18:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FREE Players Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

While I love drum corps, this particular page does not satisfy GNG. Two are local papers and then the last two are the before-and-after coverage of one event by the local CBS station. It does not meet WP:SUSTAINED/WP:SBST. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:SUSTAINED, having sources published between 2016 and 2019 currently cited. WP:SBST doesn't apply as this article is not about an event. WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage, and CBS News is a national broadcaster. NemesisAT (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of those sources is clearly promotional ("Weisenberg donates to local drum corps" which focuses more on the donator than the actual corps), and the main point that the sources talk about is how "FREE is going to play at Drum Corps finals!" (a singular event). CBS is a national broadcaster, but just like NPR, they operate at the local level too. The two sources are local news, as they quite clearly state at the top of the article. Another is a university newspaper, which aren't reliable sources per WP:BAND. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The story is published on cbsnews.com, and even as "local news" New York state is a very large area to call "local". The sources are not covering the event, they're covering the FREE Players. This article is also not about an event, it is about the FREE Players. It feels like a bit of a stretch to say this subject falls under the notability guidelines for events. Am really puzzled at the lengths you're going to try to get this deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the corps, yes, but their singular appearance at a finals event is not enough to establish notability. And since the other sources (aside from possibly FloMarching) are not reliable sources (being a student newspaper and non-NPOV article), they have not generated enough sustained coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The article is about the corps" and thus the articles help estbalish significant coverage per WP:GNG. The Herald Community Newspapers article has an author listed and there is enough independent content there to allow the article to count towards GNG. As for whether The Hofstra Chronicle is reliable, I think it's a bit extreme to dismiss a student newspaper over this non-controversial subject. NemesisAT (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Student newspapers are (somewhat) fine for extraneous details, but not for establishing notability. And having an author means very little. The only truly significant coverage (i.e., not just local) I can find just discusses that they "made history" by playing at Finals. But one event does not establish notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Why? I Ask the coverage is too thin and basically about one event. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheWikiholic (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have a mention in a 2019 Newsweek article, but anything after 2013 by Newsweek is problematic, so unsure if this source helps or hinders our efforts to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 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 13:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L-Charge[edit]

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

WP:SERIESA. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no reason has been given for deletion at all. TechCrunch is not used in the references. So user:Ari T. Benchaim what is the real reason to delete? Could Ksenia34, the creator be an undisclosed paid editor? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the original nom. I forgot where TECHCRUNCH redirected. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. This is all press releases and puffery so far. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The company is on the verge of being notable, but this article is a WP:PROMO and everything I can find about this company is trade press, routine coverage, or dependent sources like profiles. Maybe in a few years. FalconK (talk) 06:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of bounds (playgrounds)[edit]

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

Reviewed under page patrol. Title is not a distinct or wp:notable topic. Basically an essay on common playground safety put under an "out of bounds" title. References do not treat it as a topic. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on playground safety is notable, spots important places children should not enter. Citations were all I could find from the citation picker about this topic. Do not close until consensus has been reached. Gabi Salinas (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random synthesis of ideas with no clear topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, synthesis of at least three loosely related topics, and couldn't even find a suitable delsort for this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to playground. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large meandering essay.....trying to distill anything out of that to merge would be a big difficult thankless job which I don't think that anybody would tackle. And I think that there's near-zero chance that somebody looking for something on playgrounds would land on an "out of bounds" redirect. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 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 03:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Muthoni[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Each of the 7 reference items are something written by him. Tagged for notability since March North8000 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2022

Also some concern that the creator has 26 lifetime edits, and those were all in creating or developing articles on 18 business people.North8000 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : some good names in references but no policy based notability. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in the article. Mahdiar86 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. I'll add a friendly advice to nominator @The Film Creator:, please do a decent WP:BEFORE before rushing articles into AFD. If I'm not missing anything this is at least your forth consecutive AFD which is being withdrawn and closed as kept. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timescape (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m aware the film was nominated for a Saturn Award. However, per WP:NFO, the film must have “received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.” The Film Creator (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found these reviews in the Cambridge Town Crier [8] and this from the Statesman Journal [9] DonaldD23 talk to me 15:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST and per User:Donaldd23. The Film Creator (talk) 09:49, 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 03:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryans Run, Delaware[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable place. PepperBeast (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some mentions in house ads (see here for an example) but besides that no coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete ADC maps are a terrible source as far as we are concerned, because they label every little development, sometimes with names that nobody has used in decades. Anyway, it's clearly a NN housing development. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice toward a redirect being made after deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teburae Rataro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:51, 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) 23:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:58, 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. The consensus is pretty clear here. While this individual might have had an impact locally on schools, that is not enough to reach Wikipedia's standards for notability. There are many admirable people, doing great things and helping communities, who do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards which typically require recognition beyond that received in ones local area.

One question I'm left with with this closure though is why it is so much easier to be considered notable if one is a headmaster than a school principal. It's hard to see how many of these private school administrators meet WP:NACADEMIC. Maybe someone can inform me on my talk page about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Your second point is very valid. FedFoxEx (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen O'Kane[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP - school principals aren't considered significant under {WP:ACADEMIC} Niftysquirrel (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Niftysquirrel (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following:

Does not meet criteria at WP:NACADEMIC - no significant academic works, award, or scholarly associations. No substantial impact outside their profession or other works.
Sources do not constitute significant coverage sufficient of demonstrating notability per WP:BIO. Several are primary, and the reliable, secondary sources do not cover the subject beyond a trivial mention. This article is about storms, and only mentions the subject once while discussing another matter entirely. This link is dead, and the new link here links to an article about the local school getting some sort of traffic improvement, it again not focused on the individual but rather something else. This is the only source that demonstrates any notability, focusing entirely on the subject. However I do not think an article about a school principal on its own demonstrates a need for a stand-alone article. Rather, if the school is sufficiently notable, any defamation claim by its principal teacher ought to be included there, not solo.

In short, I recommend deleting because there is no criteria met either specific to the subject's profession or generally warranting inclusion of this article. MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can be argued that the subject fits into the seventh academic criteria, which is, "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The subject fits into this criteria; it was stated in the article that the subject assisted in bringing in a program to MacGregor State School to promote inclusion and multiculturalism. Additionally, it was also stated in the article that O'Kane fought to get the Department of Education Queensland to install a 'Drop and Go Zone' at the school which was essential for students' safety, as more than 70% of the 1300 students attend Macgregor State School are dropped off by car. This clearly demonstrates a 'substantial impact outside academia', as the subject clearly has fought for these to benefit the students at the school.

The second claim about the sources can also be refuted. The reliable, secondary sources clearly demonstrate notability, and it does not 'cover the subject beyond a trivial mention'. The first article listed is a long article / blog about storms. It is not a 'trivial mention', when clearly when talking about the damage of the school, there was a specific section in the blog of it. It included how the school the subject was a principal at was severely damaged and even included quotes from the subject that described the damage. This clearly is not a trivial mention, is it? The second article that Mr. MaxnaCarter described as dead is false. The link in the actual article clearly works, so the individual is once again refuted. Additionally, the article is not focused on 'traffic improvement', it is focused on a safe, drop and go zone for students. It was clearly stated in the article that 70% of the 1300 students attending arrived by car. The article focused on the addition of that, and mentioned how the subject was given the green light for the works to commence, after fighting for it. This is again, another important and substantial impact that the subject made. The third argument Mr. MaxnaCarter made was of the 'stoush' between the subject and school parents. The user stated that 'if the school is sufficiently notable, any defamation claim by its principal teacher ought to be included there, not solo.' This clearly demonstrates the user did not thoroughly read the article; the article clearly stated that the subject was allegedly defamed, not the school. Why should the defamation be included in the school's wikipedia page if it was clearly by the subject, and not the school?

It is clear this page has met the criteria of a person who has had substantial impact. The user's claims of the sources not having significant coverage are outright false. The sources state that the subject has clearly fought for items such as the drop and go zone which had a crucial impact for the 70% of the 1300 students at the school. The user described this as a 'traffic improvement', which is clearly incorrect as it had a substantial impact to the many students who get dropped off and picked up. Therefore, this page needs to be kept. FedFoxEx (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- No program that affects just one secondary or primary school is a substnatial enough impact program to show notability in that way. What you would need is sourcing in reliable sources that is sustained enough to show such is generally notable and that is not what the sources do here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability, establishing a 'drop and go zone' isn't in itself notable or a 'substantial impact outside of academia' Dexxtrall (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find anything useful in terms of sources. Agree with Dexxtrall about the proposed drop and go zone. Deus et lex (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete educational leaders below the tertiary level are almost never notable for such. The sourcing is not even close to showing that this person is one of the very, very extremely rare exceptions to that rule of thumb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Johnpacklambert, I just want to say about this, is that the article created was more to be towards the subject's impact towards the schools rather than the educational side of things. So positive things like the drop & go zone, inclusion programs, and helping the school find a time capsule before, and some negative things which were the damages of the classrooms from the storms, and the after school care saga. So what I guess my point is that the subject is not written to be a famous educator that's very good at what they do/teach such as mathematics etc but the subject is more about the impacts he had on the schools. FedFoxEx (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating a drop and go zone for a school, implementing inclusion programs at a partcicular school, and finding a time capsule are all things that are way, way, way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bar for notability of a high school principal is quite high, and this nowhere near meets it.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete analysis of sources don't demonstrate WP:PROF or WP:BIO is met. The advocacy for a drop and go zone hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello, I would say it's not just about the drop and go zone however. But the drop and go zone I would argue is a crucial improvement and was substantial, considering 70% of the 1300 students arrived by car and it was crucially important to ensure their safety by building it. The subject also advocated for the program that promoted inclusivity at Macgregor State School and other sources and events such as the after school care and 150 yr anniversary at Windsor State School. The sources mention that the subject contributed to these events like the drop and go, inclusivity program etc which were substantial impacts to the schools, and they were outside of the actual education (academia) the students received. FedFoxEx (talk) 04:37, 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.

[Star071031-1] Thomas, Ken (October 31, 2007). "GM plant in Md. produces hybrid transmission systems". The Star-Democrat. Easton, Maryland. Associated Press. p. A10. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[Balt090424-2] Walker, Andrea K. (April 24, 2009). "GM shutdown: White Marsh transmission plant to close 4–8 weeks". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 16. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[Balt990520-3] Apperson, Jay (May 20, 1999). "GM plant planned in Balto. Co.: Truck transmissions would be built near White Marsh Mall". The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 1A, 8A. Retrieved May 16, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]