Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 07 May 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Pechyonkin[edit]

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

No hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO, no reliable sources Bash7oven (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page has been up since 2007 and has failed to establish notability (or even clear up non-encyclopedic language like "a huge aluminum factory") in those 15~ years. The article also puts him at being 83 at this time, meaning it's likely inaccurate as to his current position. Page is word for word already existent in a few other pages online. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was likely promotional at the time, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of subject failing to meet elementary criteria of notability. A lean listing in a corporate directory; an appearance in a website listing "Russian family trees"; and an article about Roman Abramovich that mentions our subject as working at some point in time for Abramovich. и это все! -The Gnome (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emin Iskenderov[edit]

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

No hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO Bash7oven (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly not enough sources to show he is a notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of any significant coverage from reliable sources. —Natalie RicciNatalie 00:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is a distinctly non-notable businessman. His sole claim to notability seems to rest on the Hermitage Plaza, in Paris, for which the article states Iskenderov "is known." He was actually and simply the hotel's construction project manager. And the project is still in paper form only. -The Gnome (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPM 2Night[edit]

RPM 2Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very little sourcing found. Newspapers.com gave only TV Guide listings. ProQuest gave a press release, more TV Guide listings, and one WP:NOTNEWS article about the show being banned by NASCAR. I was unable to find anything that constituted significant, third-party coverage despite the show's long life. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Argentine football league system. History remains under the redirect if someone wants to eventually create Torneo Federal Star Mississippi 23:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torneo Federal C[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG and it doesn't seem to be a professional cup. Dr Salvus 20:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#3; malformed. Redirects are handled at WP:RfD, not AfD. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet of brunei[edit]

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

Cabinet of Brunei is available as a redirect and the current title has Brunei with lower case letter B. DownTownRich (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SL93 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Hour[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this manga. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw: I will withdraw this. There was significant coverage found in the first AfD by myself way back in 2012, but I obviously forgot about my participation. SL93 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator per demonstration of notability/WP:HEY by PeeJay. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 14:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fall[edit]

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

Player was previously notable under WP:NFOOTY but is no longer notable by virtue of not passing WP:ANYBIO. TartarTorte 18:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Doesn't seem like the nominator followed WP:BEFORE. There is plenty of coverage of Fall's life and career in print sources. – PeeJay 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's highly possible I missed something in WP:BEFORE, but pretty much all of what I saw while searching for all three name permutations: "Joe Fall", "Joseph Fall", and "Joseph William Fall" I only found largely routine statistical information. The book source I have found was from a compendium of every player to play for Manchester United. I'd be happy to withdraw if there was something large that I missed. TartarTorte 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • --Ortizesp (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)*@TartarTorte The book you mention, does it cover him in any detail or is it just a statistical listing? Alvaldi (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Alvaldi, just a statistical listing; no biographical information. TartarTorte 21:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm in the process of expanding the article using print and online sources. Some of the information is conflicting, so I'm attempting to put together the best account I can of Fall's career. – PeeJay 21:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks. I will try and see if I can find anything on him on Newspapers.com and the British Newspaper Archive. Outside of the three name permutations you mentioned, he also seems to have been known as "J.W. Fall". Alvaldi (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PeeJay. GiantSnowman 10:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as PeeJay's expansion demonstrated. Another bad AfD nomination wasting everyone's time which shouldn't happen and is a fallout of the recent RFC. Once again reminding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --SuperJew (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Graham (footballer, born 1968)[edit]

Tommy Graham (footballer, born 1968) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No sources except some stats from a DB. No evidence of meeting GNG or SNG . Creator is indeffed for paid editing. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian involvement in the Syrian Civil War[edit]

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

Fails WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. A very short article is evidence of the limited Egyptian involvement in this conflict. News from a Turkish government website is not considered reliable. I suggest the possibility of merging it into foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war. In short, it is not worth an article on its own. Sakiv (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is suitable. Multiple sources state Egyptian support for the SAA since like 2015, and Egyptian weapon deliveries to the FSA in 2012. They also sent millions of dollars of weapons to the PKK, SDF, and SAA. Egypt has had a substantial role. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 17:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G4 per the previous AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I bet Egyptian involvement in the Second Libyan Civil War may have the similar concerns as this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete/Comment: Egypt carried out a number of airstrikes in Libya, but there has been no direct involvement in Syria (the only source for this was the Anadolu article, which was the sole source of all subsequent references). Unless we want articles for every country that has supplied some belligerent in Syria with weapons, this one needs to be deleted. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhushita Ahuja[edit]

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

Non notable subject, and at least 4 academic citations have absolutely nothing to do with the article subject. At best this is poorly written article, and at worse an attempt at bypassing lack of WP:V/WP:SECONDARY sourcing requirement. After creating this AfD, I will remove the dubious sourcing immediately given this is WP:BLP

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Dios[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in major databases. There were no sources to salvage from other language Wikipedia articles. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 17:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Eggemann[edit]

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

Not seeing any claim to notability. Even the German article contains no significant coverage, just his inclusion in databases. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of left-wing militant groups[edit]

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

Per its talk page, this list's scope is vague, leading to a calvalcade of original research. Its contents are not discussed as an independently notable topic set, so as not to warrant its own article. For comparison, the ostensibly parent list, List of militant organizations had the same issue and redirects to List of designated terrorist groups, which would be an inappropriate redirect target for the title under discussion. czar 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. czar 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no logical redirect target. Also, this article despite having the issues mentioned by the nominator also has the issue of how to define militancy for inclusion criteria as when discussing left wing groups the concept of Militancy in Trotsykism where you have non-violent groups like Militant tendency. I think that the difficulty of setting inclusion criteria and the previous results of similar pages should lead to delete. TartarTorte 19:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure listcruft that has no standard on how to term the groups as "left-wing militant". Shankargb (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep. The topic of violent left-wing groups is notable and is the subject of monographs, textbook chapters, and studies. The list, as it currently exists, might benefit from some more definite inclusion criteria. However, since agreement on inclusion criteria can likely be achieved through ordinary editing, I lean towards keeping the article rather than deleting it based on need for improvement. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In its current state, this list just smacks of OR. I'd say delete, but would be happy to change my response to Keep only if the article is given a complete overhaul. Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad to satisfy WP:SALAT. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce. This article should be kept but have stricter inclusion criteria and I say that while being well aware of my own role in expanding this list without regard for any inclusion criteria for which I sincerely apologize. Charles Essie (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic of "violent left-wing groups" is not the subject of the links provided above by Mhawk10: they are on the subject of "revolutionary violence" or "left-wing terrorism". (And this article's scope is "left-wing militant groups", not quite the same thing.) I don't bring this up to criticize Mhawk10 but to illustrate how the problems with defining the subject of this list are unsolvable. -- asilvering (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The very topic of this list (i.e. its inclusion criteria) are This is a list of left-wing militant groups around the world. These groups seek change through armed conflict or violent protest in opposition to an established government. So, yes, left-wing groups that seek violent protest in opposition to a government (revolutionary violence and terrorism) is firmly in line with those guidelines. And there's also the source on left-wing extremist violence that you conveniently ignored. If the reason for deletion is nitpicking over the title, I don't think it's particularly strong. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read that source. It has the same issue as the others: it does not have "left-wing militant groups" as its topic. I don't at all believe this is a problem that can be dismissed as nitpicking over the title; as I said in my vote, and as stated by the nominator, the difficulty of defining what this list is about is precisely the trouble, and has led to "a cavalcade of original research". -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Czar and others generally here and as someone who researches these things this list causes me no ends of headaches. As an aside can we calm down on the lists all together? Apart from maybe satisfying some individuals neurosis (I get it, i sometimes feel the compulsion to make lists too, but why here?) what exactly are long lists of extremely disparately related things bringing the English language Wikipedia project? SP00KYtalk 12:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also inevitably falls foul of WP:NPOV by conflating militant with extremist. Plus, same reasons we've deleted List of dictators five different times in its various incarnations. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly because this page is a mess. I think some of the content could be lifted into say Category:Maoist organizations and similar collections for other tendencies. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parid Bërdufi[edit]

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

Given that we now need to focus on WP:GNG, I can't see a good reason for keeping this article. During my WP:BEFORE search, I noted that Google News and ProQuest had no hits at all and DDG only contains Wikipedia mirrors, which are useless. Google search yields database websites like Soccerway, Playmaker Stats and Football Database which are far from meeting the requirements of GNG and WP:NBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jagranjosh Education Award[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. Based on what's there, a non-notable award issued by a web site. Most references are to themselves/ the web site. And most only refer to recipients. The only non-self coverage of the award looks like a repeated press release North8000 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akeem Taiwo[edit]

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

WP:NFOOTBALL no longer exists and so this article needs to pass WP:GNG to remain. All of the 6 sources currently used are either a single passing mention in a match report or a stats database profile page, neither of which can count towards GNG. A Google News search had one relevant hit, a Premium Times article where Taiwo appears in a list of players with food poisoning; no in-depth coverage. Nothing relevant found in DDG at all apart from stats sites. ProQuest had 11 hits only one of which is relevant; a match report on AllAfrica where he is mentioned only once. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hendecagonal antiprism[edit]

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

Mathcruft linking only a page without a description of this topic and a 3D model on a polyhedron database; no significant coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; there is a mention in a search result at Google Scholar, which is this article, but that only uses it in a lemma that a regular-faced polyhedron with a hendecagonal face must be a prism or an antiprism (and that in turn as part of a larger result that this is true in general for polyhedra with n-gonal faces and n ≠ 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10). 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our polyhedron articles are too full of "articles" like this one, on shapes with no in-depth coverage of their individual properties, only calculations of generic properties with cookie-cutter reference. Does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Next time, do a bulk AfD covering all the questionable articles in the same class. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because some have different search results and coverage, and I described all of that individually in the respective nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's understandable, though I think it would be OK to do a bulk AfD that describes the situation for each article, since that only takes a line or two per article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all the others (for reference, they are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). There is no substantial content or references in any of these sources, and if there ever were to be, it could be incorporated into articles like Antiprism. I also concur with the view that this should have been done as a single, bundled nomination, in the way XOR'easter describes. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don’t need little articles for unnotable polyhedra. SlimyGecko7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecagonal antiprism[edit]

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

Mathcruft linking only a page without a description of this topic and a 3D model on a polyhedron database; no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; one result on Google Scholar concerning LEDs and therefore a passing mention. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our polyhedron articles are too full of "articles" like this one, on shapes with no in-depth coverage of their individual properties, only calculations of generic properties with cookie-cutter reference. Does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Factory-line stub with very little chance of expansion that could not be more usefully applied to the parent article (in this case, Antiprism). - Since I'm not about to paste this a dozen times, this !vote applies to all twelve currently nominated articles on polyhedrons. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of subject's adequate, independent notability. And this applies to all currently nominated articles on polyheda. Our colleagues over at the polyedra project should perhaps ease up somewhat. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enneagrammic prism[edit]

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

Mathcruft sourced to a database of sequences (even there a passing mention) and an unavailable website that does not seem too different either; no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors (even a book) or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I would be inclined to delete not only this article but also all the similar ones that 1234qwer has nominated (for the reasons given). If proper sources were given there would be a case for a single article in which all of the information was combined. Without sources and evidence that these terms have significant currency in geometry they are all useless. Athel cb (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our polyhedron articles are too full of "articles" like this one, on shapes with no in-depth coverage of their individual properties, only calculations of generic properties with cookie-cutter reference. Does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enneagrammic antiprism[edit]

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

Mathcruft linking only pages without a description of this topic; no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy delete under G12, the article was indeed a copyright violation but Earwig couldn't read the associated pdf at the url. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1958 Jordan crisis[edit]

1958 Jordan crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Normally I say we give an article a chance, but this one is a giant paragraph and is so poorly written that I think it needs to be deleted and an enthusiastic editor could start over. I'm going with ignore all rules because deletion of this article will make Wikipedia better. If someone can re-write/edit/cleanup quickly, I'd happily withdrawl.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article was up for a Speedy delete for copyright violation. I removed the one paragraph that was a copyvio and removed the speedy. I wasn't comfortable doing a speedy deletion after that, so I brought the article here for discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: it's still a copyvio. The text left after removing the intro can be found in the pdf preview at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230513921_4?noAccess=true. The article creator has changed a few words ("In December, the authorities in Nablus arrested five persons for ‘communist activities’ and located an oversized cache of weapons" instead of "In December, the authorities in Nablus arrested five persons for ‘communist activities’ and found a large cache of weapons") and omitted some others (e.g. "Although Jordan remained under law, local opposition forces," instead of "Although Jordan remained under martial law, local opposition forces,"). However they have not removed the reference numbers from the original text (note e.g. "‘Arab Cold War’.5 The ") and not even the header/footer info ("54 L. Tal, Politics, the Military and National Security in Jordan, 1955–1967 © Lawrence Tal 2002� The July Crisis 55"). In addition to that the article features linebreaks at the exact same location like the original content. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Copyvios report only shows 4.8% of the text as a match and lists it as "Violation unlikely" -- after a review of the text, it's just a heading and not material information AND the article gives credit to the source. Poorly written? Yes. Copyvio? Nope. I will remove the "speedy" once again. This article needs to go through AFD. If any editor is concerned about the remaining ten words that they think might be a copyright violation, they can remove those ten words.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Paulmcdonald, please do have a closer look at the actual content and the Springer link. I am a huge fan of Earwig's copyvio detector, however it doesn't help in this case as it doesn't cover the pdf preview on the Springer site. Even when running copyvio detector on the specific pdf it's not accurate due to the weird formatting (still 67.8%). Please also consider the notes I made in the previous message (e.g. the copied footers, copied ref-numbers). I have no issues with letting this Afd run its due course. I do however still believe it would qualify for speedy deletion. And so it appears does TenPoundHammer, as they were the second user to tag it for speedy deletion. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecagrammic prism[edit]

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

Unreferenced mathcruft; almost no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: apart from https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Cube3-Compound.html, a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our polyhedron articles are too full of "articles" like this one, on shapes with no in-depth coverage of their individual properties, only calculations of generic properties with cookie-cutter reference. Does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep, that's mathcruft. As far as websites go, MathWorld seemingly tends to the indiscriminate, with an attitude of, "That was mentioned once somewhere and given that name by one guy — throw it in!" And in this case, the passing mention in an article about a broader topic doesn't amount to significant coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecagrammic antiprism[edit]

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

Mathcruft linking only pages without a description of this topic; no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings (as well as a fantasy book (?)); no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecagrammic crossed-antiprism[edit]

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

Mathcruft linking only pages without a description of this topic; no coverage in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagrammic prism (7/3)[edit]

Heptagrammic prism (7/3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced mathcruft; no coverage of any "heptagrammic prism" in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagrammic prism (7/2)[edit]

Heptagrammic prism (7/2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced mathcruft; no coverage of any "heptagrammic prism" in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bam Margera. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bam's Unholy Union[edit]

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

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. I found sources about Bam Margera that passingly mention this show, but none explicitly about the show itself. At only nine episodes, it can be said to have lasted too little to meet WP:NTV:

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 14:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep, Well-known show with notable actors/performers FMSky (talk) 10:03, 16 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 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! 23:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagrammic crossed-antiprism[edit]

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

Unreferenced mathcruft; no coverage of any "heptagrammic antiprism" nor "heptagrammic crossed-antiprism" in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors (even a book) or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagrammic antiprism (7/3)[edit]

Heptagrammic antiprism (7/3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced mathcruft; no coverage of any "heptagrammic antiprism" in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors (even a book) or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagrammic antiprism (7/2)[edit]

Heptagrammic antiprism (7/2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced mathcruft; no coverage of any "heptagrammic antiprism" in secondary independent sources I could find online: a web search mostly returns Wikipedia mirrors (even a book) or indiscriminate listings; no results on Google Scholar at all. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Hernandez[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence of her meeting WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. She has not won or been nominated for any major awards for her works, Google searches come up with practically nothing besides links to her social media profiles, and none of the references in the article prove notability. Being a reporter/anchor alone for ABC World News and its affiliates does not merit notability as we do not have articles on every person who works there. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 12:22, 1 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 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Independent sources are utterly lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the comments are policy based, in that they don't address why she should be an exception to the guidelines. While consensus here is thin, the prior AfD was well attended and there's no evidence the situation has changed. Star Mississippi 23:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpam_Priya_Choudhary[edit]

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

non notable politican, not elected to any office as of yet. party lost all seats it contested in last elections and fails notability validation. the article was deleted previously but I thought to include it for discussion before nominating for deletion. Rohan9082 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Rohan9082[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rohan9082,

Pushpam Priya Choudhary is well known politician from Bihar belongs to a political background family and the founder of highly discussed party 'The Plurals Party'. The first time party not elected to any offices and failed to form the government but gain 7 lakhs+ votes in Bihar in very few days.

The article was deleted previously, it doesn't means that can't be created next time. Notability proves by all the article I mentioned in the articles references not by winning or losing the seats.

Thanks!

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Lekkala R Reddy, thanks for the comment. According to Wikipedia's policy on notability of politicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(politics)), the candidate must have been elected to a government office/ notable diplomatic office in order to qualify for inclusion. No one gains a Wikipedia article solely on the basis of 7 lakh votes (which is very low considering there have been crores of electors who voted) and that so many minor parties announced nominations for Chief Ministerial candidates. Certainly, the person might be suitable for inclusion in a future date, given she gains the criteria aforementioned (see to the link), but as of now, I believe, it is not so notable a topic. Also, talking about the references and citations, most appear to be Press Releases and the article itself has a very promotional tone, that might hint at something fishy. Thanks! Rohan9082 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. She is budding politicians and surely will do well in future. We should not promote deletion just because she has not got elected. Robinindian (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 23:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Naghavi[edit]

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

Google Scholar does show him as one of the authors in several dozen papers with hundreds or thousands of citations each. However, he is one of the several hundred researchers part of the Global Burden of Disease study, and each of these dozens of highly cited papers lists every possibly relevant one of them and thus having several hundred authors each, or, in some specialized topics, dozens of authors each.

According to his CV, he is currently head of the University of Washington's institute for health metrics and evaluation , which runs this and similar projects and is there included on all of their papers. This does not mean he has any special academic or scientific responsibility for any or all of them, any more than the Dean of the School would have if he insisted on putting his name on everything the school produced.

In this situation the ordinary WP:PROF guidelines fail. He might have been notable as a research before being an administrator, but this is not shown; our standards for being a notable administrator discuss only being president of a n institution or head of an independent school.

I am not saying an adequate article would be impossible, but this is not. I will gladly withdraw the afd is someone wishes to clarify the role(s), and can find good 3rd party truly independent references for his importance as an administrator that are more than the usual PR.

We've had a number of similar papers in the physical sciences for people who are just one of a group --usually I would have no hesitation in rejecting them as non-notable , but he might possibly be in a more important actual position than just member DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Iran. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has huge citations for publications with many authors, as the nomination states. But even just looking at first-author papers he has citation counts of 3424 ("Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death"), 540 ("The burden of disease and injury in Iran 2003"), 469 ("Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data"), 456 ("Global, regional, and national burden of suicide mortality 1990 to 2016"), etc. I think this is enough to demonstrate a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be re-written properly.--- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sepsis deaths around world 'twice as high as previously thought'". the Guardian. The Guardian. 16 January 2020.
  2. ^ "Sepsis Symptoms To Look Out For, As Study Reveals It Causes One In Five Deaths Globally". HuffPost UK. HuffPost. 17 January 2020.
  3. ^ "U.S. Life Expectancy Trails Other Wealthy Nations". WebMD. WebMD.
  4. ^ CNN, Susan Scutti. "Violent deaths increased 143% in 2016". CNN. CNN. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ "Watch out: 1 in 5 deaths globally from sepsis". BBC News 中文 (in Simplified Chinese). BBC News.
  6. ^ "Los 6 países donde se producen la mitad de las muertes por arma de fuego en el mundo (y 5 son latinoamericanos)". BBC News Mundo (in Spanish).
  7. ^ Steel, Nicholas; Ford, John A.; Newton, John N.; Davis, Adrian C. J.; Vos, Theo; Naghavi, Mohsen; Glenn, Scott; Hughes, Andrew; Dalton, Alice M.; Stockton, Diane; Humphreys, Ciaran; Dallat, Mary; Schmidt, Jürgen; Flowers, Julian; Fox, Sebastian; Abubakar, Ibrahim; Aldridge, Robert W.; Baker, Allan; Brayne, Carol; Brugha, Traolach; Capewell, Simon; Car, Josip; Cooper, Cyrus; Ezzati, Majid; Fitzpatrick, Justine; Greaves, Felix; Hay, Roderick; Hay, Simon; Kee, Frank; Larson, Heidi J.; Lyons, Ronan A.; Majeed, Azeem; McKee, Martin; Rawaf, Salman; Rutter, Harry; Saxena, Sonia; Sheikh, Aziz; Smeeth, Liam; Viner, Russell M.; Vollset, Stein Emil; Williams, Hywel C.; Wolfe, Charles; Woolf, Anthony; Murray, Christopher J. L. (3 November 2018). "Changes in health in the countries of the UK and 150 English Local Authority areas 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016". The Lancet. pp. 1647–1661. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32207-4.
  8. ^ "Variation in the COVID-19 infection–fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: a systematic analysis". The Lancet. 16 April 2022. pp. 1469–1488. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02867-1.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing identified and included here counters nom assertion of no hits. Star Mississippi 23:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revealed with Jules Asner[edit]

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

Completely unsourced since 2008. Zero hits on GNews, GBooks, TelevisionWeek archives. Newspapers.com hits were 100% TV Guide listings. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Collins, Monica (2002-04-21). "TV Plus - Clickers - News channels spinning the facts". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "E! seems to be throwing its full weight behind Jules Asner and her series "Revealed" (10 p.m. weeknights), in which Asner slobbers over stars. Asner doesn't work hard. All she does is latch onto the latest celebrity who's plugging a new movie and then she lobs embarrassing softball questions. Nothing's "revealed" except that Asner can't ask anything tough or truly revealing. Her interview with Celine Dion was nauseatingly sugary. On Wednesday, Asner goes toe-to-toe with Angelina Jolie, the star who has committed many sharing violations and spills more than you ever wanted to know. Even in this situation, count on Asner to tread lightly. The title of the show should be changed from "Revealed With Jules Asner" to "Congealed With Jules Asner" because each interview turns into a sticky, sycophantic mess."

    2. "Asner chats with stars; '20/20' visits the Bushes". The Standard-Times. 2001-12-04. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "E! kicks off the new interview series "Revealed with Jules Asner" with back-to-back chats with two of Hollywood's biggest stars. The "E! Daily News" host talks with George Clooney at 8 p.m., followed by Julia Roberts at 9 p.m. Both actors discuss their roles in the forthcoming film "Ocean's Eleven," the remake of the 1960 Rat Pack heist movie.  ... Asner promises to get personal stories from her subjects and share early screen tests and other visual goodies with her audience. "Revealed" will air on Wednesdays at 10 p.m., beginning on Dec. 12."

    3. Grego, Melissa (2001-12-10). "'Jules' Rules E! Ratings". Daily Variety. Vol. 274, no. 6. p. 8. ISSN 0011-5509. ProQuest 5720333.

      The article notes: "E! Entertainment Television's two-hour preem of bio skein “Revealed With Jules Asner” rated higher than any other series preem in the basic cabler's 11-year history.  The two-parter featuring segs on “Ocean's Eleven” stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts, from 8–10 p.m. on Wednesday, averaged a .93 cable rating, or 707,000 households. The first part, on Clooney, earned an average .84 cable rating (640,000); viewership went up during the Roberts seg to a 1.01 cable rating (823,000 households)."

    4. Gay, Jason (2003-04-14). "Aaron Brown's 'Weird' Science". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "now she hosts her own show, Revealed with Jules Asner , a perfectly pleasant interview show with all the hot young newsmakers from the world of entertainment. ... Ms. Asner was being a little tough on herself. She's managed to get a number of stars to open up about themselves, and she's learned to ask the tough questions, too. ... Ms. Asner said that when she first started doing Revealed , the people behind the show wanted her to ask stars how they lost their virginity. She said she wouldn't do it."

    5. Rosenthal, Phil (2001-12-12). "Repairs ahead on 'Sesame St.'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Maybe that "Ocean's Eleven" overkill wasn't so dumb after all. It helped E! Entertainment Television's two-hour premiere of bio series "Revealed With Jules Asner" to the cable outlet's highest ratings for a series debut in its 11-year history.  Asner's George Clooney interview attracted 640,000 homes, and her chat with Julia Roberts drew 823,000. It probably didn't hurt that Asner is dating "Ocean's" director Steven Soderbergh. "

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

    Cunard (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School of Hard Knocks (TV series)[edit]

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

Unsourced stub on a TV show about a non-notable organization. Zero sourcing found. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Smith, Giles. "Will Greenwood takes soft approach to hard knock life". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-10-13. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "Would the world be a better place if a few more people played rugby? That’s the question boldly asked by School of Hard Knocks, the Sky Sports reality series, which cites in support of the proposition the “motivation, discipline and respect” that rugby union offers as standard, and is also bold enough to intimate that the answer might be yes. ... Now, though, in goes School of Hard Knocks, scouring deprived Haringey (as, in previous series, it scoured the East End of London and Croydon), luring the disaffected with the promise of competitive rugby (and a role in a television show; we shouldn’t leave that potential clincher out of the motivational package) and offering a glimpse of redemption in a session on the tackle pads with Scott Quinnell."

    2. Kitson, Robert (2014-02-28). "School of Hard Knocks documentary puts Six Nations in perspective". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "It is the latest lesson from the School of Hard Knocks, the unique collision of rugby union, fly-on-the-wall television documentary and disadvantaged young adults which should be compulsory viewing in all middle-class households when its seventh series starts on Sky in September. ... With any luck, this year's shivering Birmingham intake – the weather has been grim since filming started – will also find it a springboard to a better place and, ideally, full-time work."

    3. Godwin, Hugh (2010-03-21). "Ruck and Maul: Greenwood is punished by his own pupils at 'School of Hard Knocks'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "Ever fancied giving a rugby pundit a good pasting? Sky Sports' 'School of Hard Knocks' will do it for you, in episode four of the series to be aired next Tuesday night. Will Greenwood and Scott Quinnell are attempting to turn a bunch of East London ex-criminals and ne'er-do-wells into a rugby team, and the latest episode sees one player, known as Lucky, pile into Greenwood during a tackle session. A suitably gravelly voiceover comes from Steve "Phil Mitchell" McFadden of 'Eastenders' - surprising really, when Ross Kemp is the real-life rugby fan among the fictional brothers. Anyway, with two more episodes to come even the relentlessly positive Greenwood, whose dad Dick was one of England's greatest coaching innovators, is wondering if this motley crew are worth all the aggro."

    4. Harris, Tom (2021-10-10). "School of Hard Knocks project in Cornwall from Sport Cornwall". The Falmouth Packet. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "SOHK is widely recognised as a television programme that was presented by former British Lions rugby players Will Greenwood and Scott Quinnell. Stories that evolved from the progreamme and the benefits to those participating were obvious, so much so that the SOHK is now very much recognised as an important national charity, delivering life-changing programmes across the UK for both children and adults."

    5. Silk, Huw (2015-08-12). "How 24 troubled Welsh men turned their lives around – with the help of two rugby legends". WalesOnline. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "The 24 unemployed men from South Wales featured in a new Sky series premiering this weekend have been praised for the progress they made during the televised social inclusion scheme. The latest series of School of Hard Knocks begins this Saturday on Sky Sports and on Sunday on Sky 1, having been filmed earlier this year. It features the men from Cardiff, Bargoed, Tonypandy and Aberdare who are taken on an intensive training regime by Wales legend Scott Quinnell, English World Cup winner Will Greenwood and motivational psychologist Paul Boross.  The series culminates with a jobs fair for the participants."

    6. Farrell, Sean (2013-10-27). "Sky's School of Hard Knocks to size up Ireland for next series". The42.ie. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "SKY SPORTS’ COMMUNITY-based rugby project School of Hard Knocks could be coming to these shores in the coming months. ... The show’s sixth series (which ended last month) brought the Sky cameras to Glasgow, but producer Luke Rosier told TheScore.ie that Limerick and Belfast were also viable candidates at the last selection stage."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Jiaxin Tan[edit]

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

Non-notable. Sources cited are all primary, and a search only finds more of the same, as well as the usual social media accounts etc. Disc golf has no specific notability criteria, therefore general guideline must be satisfied, but isn't. No point in draftifying, as that was already attempted, and the creator moved it back to main space, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disc Golf falls under the PDGA (Professional Disc Golf Association). This person, (Jenna Jiaxin Tan) is a professional (paid) disc golfer that competes under PDGA sanctioned events. All of these tour events are cited in the article through the PDGA website. In addition, to being a two-time national champion, this person is the driving force behind the inclusion of women and leadership roles within the male dominated sport in Southeast Asia. Sirspinzalot (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirspinzalot, you might want to add !Keep (e.g. !Keep Disc Golf falls under the PDGA..) at the beginning of your answer to defend your article :) Chongkian (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the insight! I am quite new at this part of the process. Sirspinzalot (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chongkian: can you please clarify if your comment above is just that, or if you're actually !voting, because to a casual observer those two bolded words could look like the latter. (If they're not meant as such, maybe de-bold and/or prefix with '!' ?) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you see based on my answer, I was merely teaching him the proper way to save the article, which includes to write that in bold format. Ok I'll add the '!' to distinguish it. Chongkian (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep) Disc Golf falls under the PDGA (Professional Disc Golf Association). This person, (Jenna Jiaxin Tan) is a professional (paid) disc golfer that competes under PDGA sanctioned events. All of these tour events are cited in the article through the PDGA website. In addition to being a two-time national champion, this person is the driving force behind the inclusion of women and leadership roles within the male dominated sport in Southeast Asia. Sirspinzalot (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirspinzalot, if you want this article to be kept (not deleted), you need to add more citation from online sources other than the subject's affiliation, so in this case PDGA website is not counted. You should add news sources like other Malaysian online news sites, such as Malaysiakini, The Star, Berita Harian, Sin Chew Daily etc. This is stated inside Wikipedia writing rule (a.k.a Wikipedia's manual of style (MoS)) at WP:GNG Chongkian (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources are significant coverage or even WP:RS. Disc golf does not have an SNG so the only standard to go by is WP:GNG and the subject does not meet it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Player is cited entirely using sources from the sport's governing body. No independent sources to claim for notability. Ajf773 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Adams (police officer)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. It seems that Adams was linked to some high profile corruption cases in the UK, but these findings were never corroborated and he was never charged with anything. Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 1 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! 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Poorly written article, no citations, long list of reference supplied but they aren't linked so unclear how they are relevant. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 08:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking[edit]

Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Normally a five-season show would be a slam dunk for notability. However, I get zero hits on GNews, Newspapers.com, or GBooks for this show, variants of its title, or the people involved with it. The only sources are a press release and a directory listing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 1 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! 05:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, the NYT article is a one-paragraph mention in a fairly routine "what to watch this weekend" article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bare assertions that sources "can be found" have been challenged and the purported sources not produced. In line with WP:BURDEN, I am obligated to give a lower weight to these !votes and declare that the consensus is in favour of deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numenta[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards of WP:CORP. All references are from the company's own sites or from their own white papers. Tagged with Proposed deletion tag, then removed by anonymous user a few hours later. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though I appreciate the edits of StrayBolt to find independent sources, a single Harvard Business Review article and a single Wired article (which reads like a press release about their new products) doesn't, to me, seem to pass WP:ORGIND. The Google Play app no longer seems to exist and the reference used here seems to a press release, as well. I hope that we get some additional discussion about these sources. Ian Manka (my talk page) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a couple more refs, some about Numenta Anomaly Benchmark. StrayBolt (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Loads of independent reliable sources can be found by clicking on the word "scholar" in the nomination statement. Some of them have been added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • None relevant though. Lots of discussion about the application of their algos and technology, I don't see any in-depth information on the company. Perhaps you can provide a link? HighKing++ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Computing. StrayBolt (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
  • The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" and discussions about the application of the technology is not sufficient for establishing 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.
The only reference that qualifies is the Harvard Business Review that has written on a number of occasions about the company and although I haven't managed to read the article yet, I've read many similar articles from the HBR and I'm happy to assume it will be of the same quality. But we need multiple references and none of the other references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. As things currently stand, with only one reference that meets the criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. I unable to locate another reference that meets the criteria but I'm happy to change my mind if something turns up. HighKing++ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also attempted to find other articles that met the WP:NCORP (and other) standards but gave up after a while searching. Ian Manka (my talk page) 00:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion rationale was not challenged with policy-based arguments. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salif Gueye[edit]

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

this is basically a fan site praising Gueye with nothing that's actually sourced to independent rs - just a brief 15 seconds of fame for dancing on Ellen, he never won an awrd and theres no coverage otherwise PRAXIDICAE💕 16:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page have been improved, and added another achievements of artist. Rma17 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rma17 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Keep: The page have been improved, and added another achievements of artist. Rma17 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG. Sources are passing mention or fansites. LearnIndology (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources have been cleared. Need some help and check again. Rma17 (talk) 18:46, 7 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! 05:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just want to note that Salif does have 2.3 million instagram followers - and while I'd hardly want Wikipedia to be composed by the basis of how many social media followers a person has, it does lend credibility that the individual has some degree of following / "real world notability" and isn't simply a backup dancer or similar A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Salif Gueye's name is already on Wikipedia in another pages. He performed in Montreux Jazz Festival, Michael Jackson night, etc. Also Michael JAckson's official site adds Salif Gueye's performs. He called Next to Michael Jackson and continues his history. Rma17 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I31f6OOtbkE&list=WL&index=22&t=35s Rma17 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Followed are not a good measure. Followers and likes can both and are often bought. PRAXIDICAE💕 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Salif Gueye have verified instagram account. It means followers and likes are real. Rma17 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it absolutely doesn't. Instagram doesn't verify each follower of verified accounts. Get real. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They cannot check each follower one by one. Fake followers makes low activity of profile, which instagram can check: Followers are raising, Activity is going down. Actually Instagram gives verify for famous people. Rma17 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If u thinks that his followers and likes are boughted, check the comments (2500). Rma17 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some screen saves from Salif's instagram profile. People recognizing him and taking picture with him. He is famous one in his early age. Rma17 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is policy based. Please do not bludgeon the conversation if you're not going to provide policy based input. Star Mississippi 02:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 (original release)[edit]

Windows 10 (original release) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an extensive log of software updates. This article is almost entirely composed of a log of software updates, including versions and release dates. On top of that, I don't see any indication that the original version of Windows 10 is separately notable from Windows 10, so I propose that the page be redirected to Windows 10. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Washington. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though I agree with everything said by the nominator, I was surprised to find Windows 10 version 1511, Windows 10 version 1607, Windows 10 version 1703, Windows 10 version 1709, Windows 10 version 1803, Windows 10 version 1809, Windows 10 version 1903, Windows 10 version 1909, Windows 10 version 2004, Windows 10 version 20H2, but not 21H1 nor 21H2. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this page was a result of an AfD discussion regarding the original Windows 10 version history, which was getting extremely long at one point. There was clear consensus that the version histories should be kept and the widely agreed solution was to split up the versions into their own articles. I'm not sure what led the nominator to believe that this version of Windows 10 is not "separately notable" enough; there are numerous third-party sources covering each release of Windows 10. It should be noted that the Windows 10 article focuses on the operating system as a whole instead of changes introduced in specific versions. I'm also not sure why other articles (as listed above by Lopifalko) are not nominated for deletion if the nominator so strongly believes that notability cannot be established for individual releases of Windows 10. Hayman30 (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Particular releases, when split off from other articles, still need to be notable in their own right. I really don't see the above as anything other than reasoning to return the content to Windows 10 version history; the content of this article needs to be notable in its own right in order to merit an article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hayman30 seems to make a good point for keeping the article, though I do personally of disagree with the general "practice" of this type of article, at least split up in this way. I think Wikipedians are disproportionately hardcore Computer Scientists or Chemists - so many "database-like" / technical articles in these subjects are often created and kept. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -based on Hayman30's notes about previous discussions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rabah Mokrani[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single start in the Algerian top division, plus a handful of substitute's appearances, but comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only online English, Arabic, or French-language coverage I can find are database entries (routine/trivial). Jogurney (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Favored Nations (nonprofit)[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage; fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is plenty of in-depth coverage in the New York Times, Fast Company, ABC News, The Hollywood Reporter and many more in the referencea. The organization clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. I wonder, if the user Jsfodness even bothered reading those articles or just nominated based on any other ideas.--Rothwarms7 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage in mainstream media shows notability of the organization. KhinMoTi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamosta[edit]

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

This article about a Kurdish word fails the general notability guideline. There are issues with the current sourcing which fails to support some of the claims. However the reason for deletion is the lack of significant coverage needed to develop an artcle that is more than a dictionary entry. There is already this Wiktionary item which contradicts the article. The best source I have found is this, which again contradicts the article and is not enough to suggest notability. Gab4gab (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2022-04 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America1000 00:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Alkarim[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this news anchor. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A one minute Google news search turned up the following: BBC coverage of her as a victim of crime[1], BBC coverage of an event she organised on feminism where no women were invited[2], albeit a quote, but covered in Daily Jang on International Women's Day 2018.[3]

References

  1. ^ "کراچی میں سٹریٹ کرائم آج بھی بڑا چیلنج". BBC News اردو (in Urdu). 24 January 2017.
  2. ^ "'پینل یا مینل! ہم تنگ آگئے ہیں'". BBC News اردو (in Urdu). 21 November 2019.
  3. ^ "صنف نازک نہ کہو، یہ ترقی کی کنجی ہے". jang.com.pk. 8 March 2018.

On those alone, not quite enough to pass the GNG, but more thorough searching would be helpful. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP, I have modified upto some extent ( and yes I can expand the article as well) with secondary citations removing all the primary citations. --- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new sources aren't even about her for the most part and the interview is a primary source. SL93 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Mansour (actor)[edit]

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

Entirely sourced with PR articles; fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by a since-blocked account, very likely paid. Page needs to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR: "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The page's current 5 references are marginal at best; and I couldn't find any RS via Google. Even if we give the page the benefit of the doubt, I think it is WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR. All his acting roles have been minor. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Libertarian National Committee chair election[edit]

2022 Libertarian National Committee chair election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Libertarian National Committee chair election. Content can go in 2022 Libertarian National Convention when that article is created. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xtrend[edit]

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

Entirely sourced with pr content/special content/guest/brand content. Non-notable forex broker. Fails WP:NCORP. Jsfodness (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eroica Classical Recordings[edit]

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

Non-notable record label, zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Some amusing whoppers in this article. The claim about their Bartók CD is contradicted by a Hungaroton disc with Barnabás Kelemen and Zoltán Kocsis that has the exact same program. (It's looking at me from the shelves next to my desk!) If I remember correctly, Isabelle Faust and André Gertler also recorded the same program prior to the one made by the above label. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:01, 6 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 02:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. This ought to be beyond uncontroversial: there are zero independent sources. At this stage, this is not remotely well-attested enough to come near WP:NCORP.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a company therefore NCORP applies, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary society[edit]

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

This article's topic is covered sufficiently elsewhere on Wikipedia at Contemporary history, 21st century, Human, Post-industrial society, & Information society. It is a kind of unneeded WP:CONTENTSPLIT from those articles without a good reason. In addition, it may contain WP:OR and WP:TNT applies. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ganesha811. Too vague a term to make an article on. Other linked articles have large overlap and better-defined scope. Sources are quite old, so the 'contemporary' is questionable. Femke (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a facile essay. If it was to be kept, it would need in-line references, of which a substantial number should be in English. Most of the references seem to be to books in Italian, some of which may have English-speaking (e.g. American) authors, presumably translated into Italian. My guess is that this is an article translated from the Italian WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, this overlaps heavily with existing, and far better-cited, articles. Oh, and I endorse both Femke's and Peterkingiron's comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination. Per nominator request, closing AfD Tawker (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Museum of Contemporary Art[edit]

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

These are not related entities, only in the same city. Trying to move Draft:Anderson Museum of Contemporary Art PigeonChickenFish (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize but this was suppose to be a speedy deletion. I am unsure how to delete this? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw my nom (per WP:WITHDRAW) since this was an accident. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cipriano[edit]

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

Found a lot of passing mentions to his work, and he's quoted in a few works on voice acting, but I found no substantial third-party sources whatsoever on Newspapers.com or ProQuest. Deprodded without comment by an IP. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Connecticut. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly. I noticed the prod nomination yesterday and spent some time searching for sources. Like the nom, I found lots of mentions and quotes, a few interviews, an RS (about someone else) that referred to Cipriano as "legendary", but no significant coverage of Cipriano himself. He appears to be highly respected and well-known in the voice acting field, there's just insufficient documentation to support an article. I would be glad to change this to "keep" if anyone else can discover sources that I didn't find. But for now, doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE or WP:BASIC. Keep as the sources found by Cunard below are sufficient for notability. Schazjmd (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Delete per nom. There are lots of mentions, but unfortunately there's not enough to support a stand-alone article. Fails WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Keep - Changed my !vote as reliable sources showing notability were pointed out here. Meets WP:BASIC and passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Mandel, Brynn (2013-12-08). "The local 'Joe' who lived 'on the air ' - Watertown native tells all in new book". Republican-American. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

      The article notes (my bolding): "Some knew him as Tom Collins. To others, he went by Dave Donovan. Yet others knew him from earlier days as his birth name, Dave Cipriano, the teen who spent every spare minute at the local radio station's studio in downtown Waterbury. Eventually, in Los Angeles, celebs like Queen Latifah and Tom Hanks called the Watertown native Joe Cipriano - the name that has stuck for the local guy gone Hollywood. ... Today, viewers nationwide hear Cipriano's voice almost daily. And the world has come to hear, if not necessarily know, Cipriano, too, as he expanded to announcing live events like the prime time Emmy or Grammy awards - watched by millions the world over."

    2. Mandel, Brynn (2011-03-09). "Watertown native vies for 'Wheel of Fortune' gig". Republican-American. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

      The article notes: "Cipriano already lends his voice to promos for upcoming episodes of CBS and FOX comedies like "Two and a Half Men" and "The Simpsons." He also has announced for the Primetime Emmy and Grammy Awards several times. His upbeat, radio-friendly voice can also be heard on everything from the Hallmark Movie Channel to "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" to the translated vocal expressions of Chef Masaharu Morimoto on the Food Network's "Iron Chef America.""

    3. "Voice-Over Artist Joe Cipriano Relies On Neumann U 87". Mix. 2007-02-14. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

      The article notes: "Los Angeles–based voice-over artist Joe Cipriano (pictured) has used a Neumann U 87i large diaphragm microphone in his work for more than 20 years. Cipriano’s voice is heard in promos for series such as The Simpsons, Everybody Loves Raymond, King of the Hill, Mad TV and Family Guy. His voice also represents NBC shows such as Deal or No Deal, ER, Medium, Heroes, Las Vegas, Crossing Jordan and Biggest Loser. Cipriano is also the exclusive announcer for the Food Network."

    4. "Cipriano, Joe 1954–". Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television. Gale. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09 – via Encyclopedia.com.

      The article notes: "Full name, David Joseph Cipriano; born September 8, 1954, in Waterbury, CT; raised in Oakville, CT; married Ann Gudelsky (in television), May 19, 1979; children: Dayna, Alex. Avocational Interests: Playing tennis. Career: Actor and voice artist. Announcer for various projects and for television networks, including NBC, Fox, and the Food Network. Worked as a voice artist for television and radio promotional spots, performed imaging work for radio stations, appeared in advertisements, voice artist for film advertisements, and created advertisements and promotional spots. Worked as a disc jockey in Waterbury, CT, and worked in radio in Washington, DC. Participated in informational panels and online seminars. Founder of Joe Cipriano Promos, Inc."

    5. Articles about his book:
      1. Clark, Susan Storer (2014-01-02). "Interview with Joe Cipriano and Ann Cipriano". Washington Independent Review of Books. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        This is an interview. The article provides several sentences of non-interview coverage. The article notes: "Joe Cipriano is one of those voiceover actors, and Living On Air tells his story, from the time he was a 14-year-old kid hanging around an AM radio station in Waterbury, Conn., to now, when his vocal skills have earned him a house with a pool and tennis court in Beverly Hills. His wife Ann, an Emmy Award-winning writer and producer, is co-author of the book."

      2. Joe, Ryan (2016-06-24). "The State of Indie Audiobooks". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the book. The article notes: "Certainly, one can see the growth of self-published audiobooks through their representation in major awards such as the Audies. ... In 2015, Joe Cipriano’s memoir Living on Air, which he cowrote with his wife, Ann Cipriano, was an Audie finalist, as was Rosalind James’s contemporary romance Just This Once."

      3. "Joe Cipriano: The man behind the voice over". CBS News. 2014-02-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        This is an interview. The interview description notes: "Joe Cipriano is one of the most recognized voices in America and has worked for most major broadcast and radio networks. He also provides the live voice for the Grammy and Emmy Awards. Cipriano joins “CBS This Morning: Saturday” to discuss his new book “Living on Air: Adventures in Broadcasting.”"

      4. "Living on Air: Adventures in Broadcasting". AudioFile Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        The review notes: "This memoir of voice-over actor and radio DJ Joe Cipriano is the story of a happy, positive guy. It sometimes seems like a fully believable ad for the power of positive thinking."

      5. Baker, Joan; Gaskins, Rudy (2014-11-13). "The 1st Annual Voice Arts Awards Winners". Backstage. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Voiceover legend Joe Cipriano’s “Living On Air” earned audio book narration awards for both biography and author performance."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Mason, Anthony (2014-02-15). "The man behind the bear tone, Joe Cipriano". CBS This Morning. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        The article contains an interview with the subject. Anthony Mason, the interviewer, says, "You probably wouldn't recognize Joe Cipriano on the street unless he starts talking. His voice is one of the best known in America.  (Excerpt from Two and a Half Man ad) Cipriano has worked for most of the major networks. He's been the voice of the Grammys and the Emmys. He has written a memoir called Living on Air: Adventures in Broadcasting. Joe Cipriano, welcome."

      2. Thomas, Randy; Rofé, Peter (2008). Voice for Hire: Launch and Maintain a Lucrative Career in Voice-Overs. New York: Watson-Guptill. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-8230-9946-7. Retrieved 2022-05-09 – via Internet Archive.

        The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Joe Cipriano, the voice of NBC dramas and specials as well as numerous Fox comedy promos, including The Simpsons, lives in Los Angeles and is often called as early as 6:00 A.M. to track with New York. That means not only waking early but being in full voice when you're needed and keeping it going all day long."

      3. Tewksbury, Drew (2012-08-15). "Voice Actor Joe Cipriano Wins LaFontaine Legacy Award". Backstage. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "PromaxBDA and Brief Magazine announced Thursday that voice actor Joe Cipriano will receive the second annual Don LaFontaine Legacy Award."

      4. Arrillaga, Pauline (2007-04-08). "That announcer guy: Voice-over star finally gets his due". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Recognition, in all forms, just isn't part of the voice-over world, where an artist's "stage" is an isolated sound booth and performers are known more for their voice-over pseudonyms than their given names. There's "The Voice of Porky Pig" (Bob Bergen), "The Voice of Zatarain's" Cajun foods (Rodney Saulsberry), "The Voice of Food Network" (Joe Cipriano) and so on."

      5. Borzillo, Carrie (1995-01-14). "Radio Express Bows 'World Chart Show'. Veterans of 'AT 40' Count Down Int'l Hit Music". Billboard. Retrieved 2022-05-09 – via Google Books.

        The article provides three sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "After an extensive talent search for a host in summer 1994, Radio Express found a pair of hosts right in its own back yard: former KIIS Los Angeles jock Joe Cipriano, who is also the voice of FOX-TV, and former KOST Los Angeles jock Adrienne Walker. The two were chosen out of more than 1,400 radio personalities who applied for the gig. While Cipriano and Walker serve as the hosts for the English-language version, stations have the option to translate the show into their native tongues."

      6. Borzillo, Carrie (1996-02-10). "'World Char Show' Coming To U.S. Countdown Already Heard In 60 Nations, 27 Languages". Billboard. p. 74. Retrieved 2022-05-09 – via Google Books.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Executive-produced by Rounds and hosted by Adrienne "Ace" Walker and Joe Cipriano, "The World Chart Show" debuted Feb. 4, 1995, on fewer than 100 stations in six languages (Billboard, Jan. 14, 1995)."

      7. Ciccarelli, Stephanie; Ciccarelli, David (2013). Voice Acting For Dummies. Mississauga, Ontario: Wiley. p. 248. ISBN 978-1-118-39958-3. Retrieved 2022-05-09.

        The article notes: "Voice-over industry announcer and icon, Joe Cipriano, shared some wonderful thoughts when commenting on a Voices.com blog post pertaining to achieving your goals."

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added a couple of sources to the article. Citing reliable sources in this AfD is quite helpful. Adding them to the article itself, as I just did with two sources, would be doubly helpful. Thank you. - AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 As the respondents note, though, it seriously needs a rewrite. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket poetry[edit]

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

This is a recitation of cricket poems that predates the widespread use of wikisource. Content should be moved there and this non-encyclopedic page deleted. agtx 01:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, but rewrite. After quick search, there does seem to be quite a lot written about cricket poetry, some of it in very good academic sources, so I think it might well pass WP:GNG. Though it may be better dealt with as part of a cricket in literature page. The article in its current state needs rewritten from scratch though.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the above by Boynamedsue. The article needs a complete rewrite, becoming an article detailing the history of cricket in poetry. StickyWicket (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wisden has this feature on cricket and poetry for starters, and the sources already in the article show a WP:GNG pass. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But agree that it needs a rewrite. It's suffered over the years from people adding their favourite piece of sub-poetry when it often has no literary merit or historical significance. JH (talk page) 15:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject does pass GNG, but as others say this will need a re-write, has been mentioned on the cricket WikiProject so hopefully an editor will do so in the near future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem if an encyclopedic rewrite is possible. I just didn't want to trash a bunch of transwiki-able content by clearing out the page. That said, from the comments here, aren't we at the point where we should WP:NUKEIT? agtx 21:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, perhaps even rename the article Cricket in Literature, redirect the title, and have that split between prose and poetry. We might be best trying to get WP:CRICKET on board, as it would be a hell of a job. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston Splash[edit]

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

Likely non-notable women's basketball team. Unsourced for 10 years, Google only brings up 1400 hits, with Wikipedia leading the way. Other teams in the successor to their league, the Women's Basketball Development Association, are not apparently notable enough to be added......and the Charleston Splash doesn't show up as a former franchise. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Ali Khan[edit]

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

This article has remained completely unsourced since the last 12 years. There is no coverage of the subject's death (at the least), even by Indian Muslim news portals. That said, this subject fails WP:GNG and there's no indication of any subjective criteria being met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IndaneLove (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm not sure if the third source is a reliable one. All the three sources overlap with a lot of content. I do not feel these are helpful in getting WP:GNG passed. All those are published in a day or two. Likely the subject would be more discussed in nearby future, but currently, neither it passes GNG nor does it pass WP:NAUTHOR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TheAafi I am also not sure about third one. Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran are reliable sources.

IndaneLove (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TheAafi found one more source of Aligarh Muslim University’s official website.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndaneLove (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't establish notability. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Sabbo[edit]

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

non-notable olympian, online sources available through google are all passing mentions Avilich (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I read WP:NOLYMPICS and it is not very clear who all are notable and who are not. It’s so old olympics. Maybe newspapers at that time covered it? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It actually says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for Athletes from any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924) e.g. Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Laurentia Tan. However, winning a medal in a competition with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability, and other exceptions may be listed at sport specific guidelines." That is very clear. If you won a medal, you may be notable, otherwise not, unless there is another specific guideline for the specific thing you participated in the Olympics doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If they did not medal, they do not have default notability. If they are pre-1970 when the no professionals rules were enforced by the Olympics, competitors who did not medal are much less likely to meet notability on other grounds. There is nothing that suggests this person is notable. We need adequate sourcing to justify an article which we lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Whether to merge is up to editors (no reason for as why or what to merge has been provided). Sandstein 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was only kept due to no consensus in 2010. Since then, no third-party references have been given, or any indication of wider notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snack: Learning Software For Nutrition[edit]

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

completely and utterly non notable software, article created by the creator of said software and no sources demonstrating notability to be found. PRAXIDICAE💕 00:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both are nothing but straight up advertisements for the product, created by the owner.but apparently this is what Wikipedia is for now, along with pointless AFDsPRAXIDICAE💕 00:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—This was a declined G11 Speedy deletion candidate where the editor declining believed this to be a salvagable article which needed independent sources to demonstrate notability. After a quick search set, I do not believe this to be a salvagable article at this time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I declined the G11, with the intent of moving it to draft for sourcing, but the AfD was started before I finished editing. A quick Google search reveals multiple hits for products of this/similar names but not clear if they are this particular product. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling the phrase throws up a lot of hits, but I wasn't able to find anything independent and reliable that gives significant coverage to this particular software package. Girth Summit (blether) 10:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced article that admits it was a school project. W Nowicki (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_8&oldid=1088245632"