Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 01	November 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Gibson[edit]

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

She is only known for one event, and thus does not pass notability as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources 5 and 6 are enough for GNG. Rest is gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's easily searchable online, has recognition from other notable people. The article could/should be expanded, especially with the success of her activism and the resulting expansion of protected lands. Marleeashton (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's an awful lot of coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added 2 new RSs to what already seems ample to satisfy GNG. Also noting that WP:ONEVENT states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. " Cabrils (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources, including newly added ones. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinh Son Montagnard Orphanage[edit]

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

Could not find third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. Previously considered in AfD under different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Vinh Son Montagnard Orphanage. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the sources currently cited in the article aren't independent of the subject, and my search didn't find anything that moves the needle much in terms of notability. There are a few pieces in local outlets (e.g. [1]), but I'm not convinced they satisfy the independence/sigcov requirements of WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search under English news sources finds nothing. There's not only scant sourcing, but no sourcing at all. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find independent coverage in either English or Vietnamese. --Suitskvarts (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Savvidou[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGYMNAST. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage beyond the Daily Bruin, which I think is the school's newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cyprus, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since she has only competed in elite competition and not won, fails WP:NGYMNASTICS, so she needs to meet GNG, WP:ANYBIO. I cannot find any RSs via Google. Worth noting, as Oaktree suspected, that since 1919 "The Daily Bruin has served as UCLA’s main campus newspaper for students and members of the university" which effectively rules it out as independent/reliable. Cabrils (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Mujinga (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Zandi Mas[edit]

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

Launched as AFD as in my opinion, notability is borderline and PROD is likely to be contested. None of the sources cover the person in depth, and the sources only cover what they are doing (opening restaurants, creating social media app, etc.) but none of them cover them in depth. Per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG the article does not pass notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage. No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable-independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Moresdi (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a bio for some website. No sources found, even those given aren't much. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GMC pistol[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no relevant results on Google Scholar, internet searches or Google Books for various formulations of the gun's name in both English and Spanish. The article was translated without attribution from es.wiki; looking at that page's history, half of the information isn't even attributable to the single, inaccessible, cited source that I sincerely doubt the translator verified. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I haven't found any independent, reliable sources, even on the Spanish version of the article. And, the only info I can find on an GMC pistol is for an American rifle. So, sorry but until there are independent, reliable sources to be found, I must vote delete. If some independent, reliable sources are found, then I will change my vote.Antonio El Grosso Martin (dime) 02:28, 29 October, 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Firearms, and Argentina. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like others, I have searched but unable find any reputable sources other than mentions of one being used in a crime back in 2020. S0091 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete but without prejudice against re-creation. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Therapy Corps[edit]

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

This is an advert, plain and simple. Could not find sigcov or anything that seems to prove it passes the GNG, and article possibly is created solely to promote (violation of WP:SOAPBOX). InvadingInvader (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but TNT first, they have lots of coverage in Chicago newspapers [2], [3], and [4] are just the first three I pulled up. Some are trivial, but there are enough of them to meet GNG. The article as it stands sounds like a brochure listing for the organization; should be re-written from sractch/TNT'ed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like at the most that except for the first one, the Corps are all in passing mention rather than the focus of the article. Possible GNG pass but SIGCOV looks like it's a fail. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also suggest you read WP:JUNK if you haven't already? I think that this article would fall under WP:JUNK... InvadingInvader (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:JUNK Dexxtrall (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lolly Talk. Star Mississippi 21:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lolly Talk live performances[edit]

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

Seems like WP:FAN Billytanghh (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Billytanghh (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of kpop groups have an article like this Aga2am (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to keep the article – see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize in the main article (which needs work anyway) and Redirect to Lolly Talk. Not seeing stand-alone notability here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a split article from Lolly Talk. It doesn't have stand-alone notability and the content can be found in the older versions of the main article. I don't see why a redirect would be useful. Sun8908 _Talk 15:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging per Rhododendronites. Mccapra (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back as suggested. This violates WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Lolly Talk. This vote is purely an attempt to keep this out of "no consensus" purgatory. A merge would be easy and redirecting will cause little trouble unless someone tries to revive the article. By the way, playing live six whole times is not yet notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Strayz live performances[edit]

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

Seems like WP:FAN Billytanghh (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Billytanghh (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of kpop groups have an article like this Aga2am (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to keep the article – see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository of non-notable concerts, especially by a group that has not garnered that much coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2? There are 2? And we have a separate article? Not opposed to a Redirect if summarized in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of the group is already debatable. This list of 2 live performances surely doesn't deserve to be stand-alone. Sun8908 _Talk 15:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Surprised this survived New Page Patrol. Chumpih ^t 12:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike a similar article currently at AfD, this one can simply be deleted because there is nothing to merge. Playing live twice is not notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Room Company[edit]

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

Although the page is in a poor state, there may be something notable here. However, my WP:BEFORE search was unable to find more sources aside from a single Daily Telegraph article [5], some local coverage, and simple mentions. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, Organizations, and Education. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Sources provided are almost all primary. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harout Bedrossian[edit]

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

Lack of in-depth coverage in independent sources. MB 19:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Armenia, and Canada. MB 19:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was unable to find any sources to add. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:1F0:7DC0:1023:3E4E:7530:9B0A (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: when a Google search for his name only gives you 38 hits in total (and that's including self-uploaded videos, streaming sites like Spotify, Deezer, etc.), that's not a good sign. Appears to completely fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and all his songs appear to be self-released on his own social media channels. Richard3120 (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per above, fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 21:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peropesis[edit]

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

The article does not seem to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The only thing I could find is this and while I don't think a DistroWatch listing shows notability in any way, I can maybe see an argument that a review like this would be different, but that was the best I could find and as far as anything that would even begin to show notability for the subject is concerned, it's all I could find. A single review in a questionable source is not enough to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, and the article's subject meets none of the criteria of WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Political Consultants[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There aren't multiple, in-depth sources covering the subject. User:Namiba 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. User:Namiba 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recognize that the cited sources do not present much text about this organization, but the claims that those sources make are significant. This organization plays key roles recognized by journalists in a range of high profile political conflicts. WP:SIGCOV is a reason to exclude sources which having passing mentions of news items. Several of these cited sources, though brief, describe the subject of this article as a power influencing the outcomes of elections. Also this content is not promotional - we have sources with a range of perspectives on this organization's projects. I think this passes WP:GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited by being involved in high profile political conflicts.--User:Namiba 21:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the coverage appears to actually about them, but the issues. The conflicts might be notable, but just because they play a role does not mean that the consulting group itself is notable much like how a notable court case does not by default make a lawyer or law firm notable by extension. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, they are involved in various "things", but coverage is about them in relation to the things and talking about the things themselves. Not quite at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of MT-32-compatible computer games[edit]

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

A list article with no sourcing or any indication of why it might be notable. I was inspired by this article to draft one about Gravis UltraSound-compatible games, but determined that neither can be expanded to include a decent prose as to why the technologies are noteworthy in video gaming, as corroborated by my searches not yielding enough sources dedicated to the technologies. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of games with Gravis UltraSound support. Free Media Kid$ 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Free Media Kid$ 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not withstanding a search for sources that comes up empty, I wonder if this might meet WP:LISTN, as that requires that the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. I know that retro gaming YouTubers like LGR and PhilsComputerLab have done dedicated videos on the MT-32, as well as other vintage sound hardware like the Gravis UltraSound. While we can't cite those videos directly, there might be sources mentioned within those videos that meet our criteria for RS and would demonstrate the notability of the set such that LISTN would be satisfied and a list of these games would be appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be entirely original research without any sources. This belongs on a gaming site, not Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 15:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the Roland MT-32 article has not been in question so far, so it is unclear to me why a list of games supporting it should require a separate indication of notability. We do not require a list of video games released for a particular video game system to have a an indication of notability, separately from the article on the video game system itself, either, do we? If the question is "What makes MT-32 support more notable for games than support for the Covox Speech Thing or the Adlib Gold 1000?", then I would consider it already answered in the "Music for PC games" section of the Roland MT-32 article.

As for the lack of sourcing, I do not see a source for every release date on every "List of games released for system X" either, so I question the strict enforcement of this policy against this particular list. Even if the requirement were to be enforced, it would be much easier to fulfill (by linking to box scans on MobyGames listing the MT-32 as a supported sound device) than a hypothetical requirement for a source for every single release date on the "List of games released for system X" pages would be. The link to the MobyGames list as a source is poorly-formatted at this time, but that can be easily mended. NewRisingSun (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To all the deletionists: what are you guys hoping to achieve by deleting this page, really? More disk space? Less "noise"? Conforming to some idealised "19th century encyclopdia" concept of yours?

I'm a pragmatic person and I see Wikipedia as a wiki collecting information that's useful to people. Whether some of you people like that or not, that's how it's being used. The 18th-19th century concept of a "classic encyclopedia" has long been surpassed, I find it actually a little silly that the word "encyclopedia" is still kept in the official description of the site. E.g. I routinely come to Wikipedia to check out the synopsis of a particular episode of a TV series (please count how many such lists exist on WP!), or the list of games that use Unity, or lists of films released in a particular year, or the list of joint winners of the Nebula and Hugo awards, or... the list games that support the MT-32! In fact, I came to Wikipedia to check out lists far more frequently than anything else.

Seconding NewRisingSun's irritation; it's fine if you want to delete your own page, but this list has been lovingly maintained over 15 years by the same single guy, and has garnered more than 100k page views. Please leave it alone. Surely, the popularity of a given page should be factored into such decisions. People are clearly interested in this page, without the shadow of a doubt. Can you imagine how many other sites are linking to it? By deleting it, all those links would be broken... Again, what do you hope to accomplish by deleting other people's work?

All in all, this is an inconsistent and completely arbitrary attempt to remove a page that's an extremely useful resource for DOS gamers. And if we're questioning the significance of the Roland MT-32 itself, well, I don't even know what else to say...

Moreover, "references" could be added by linking to MobyGames or some other site. But come on, how would that be helpful? That's just creating busywork... GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!vote Keep (maybe it will work this time; as you can see I'm new to this voting thing...) GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'm 100% an inclusionist!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On determining notoriety, Wikipedia has many interesting lists. For example, the video game Guitar Hero III has a separate page dedicated to inventorying its soundtrack. That's one game, at one point in time, by one publisher. In comparison, from the late 80s through the mid-90s, famous musicians used Roland's MT-32 to compose game soundtracks because it offered the most realistic instrument reproduction, without equal. Game publishers targeted Roland's MT-32 across 13 separate PC platforms, from Atari to the Macintosh, and it was popular in Japan, Europe, and the Americas. As a co-maintainer of DOSBox Staging, one of many DOSBox software forks that use Munt, an MT-32 emulator, I can attest to the fact that many users refer to this page to learn about the games that contain MT-32 soundtracks. This information is highly valuable and of historical significance for retro PC historians and gamers alike. 99.199.156.216 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC) kcgen[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. It is not encyclopedic to know every single game that supports a specific sound hardware. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large number of notable existing video-game-related list articles ("by technology or feature"), such a blanket reference to the very general the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy cannot sufficiently justify the deletion of a particular video-game-related list article without also explaining what makes this list different from and more delete-worthy than all these other video-game-related lists. NewRisingSun (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I also express my irritation at the thinking behind "I questioned the notability of my own article and therefore decided to nominate somebody else's article for deletion"? NewRisingSun (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from WP:N, can someone explain the significance of this? I get the lists for each platform, but lists for each component? Why is this much different from, say, "list of games that support 1024x768 resolution" or "list of games that support an XBox 360 controller", apart from perhaps the smaller overall number. I'm inclined to say delete on WP:NLIST and WP:NOT grounds... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely important list if you're playing classic DOS games because it tells you which MT-32 ROM version you need to use for each game that has MT-32 support. Figuring out that information is not trivial, to say the least. Also, some games claim they're MT-32 compatible, but in fact they're not; they need a General MIDI compatible device to play the music correctly.

In general, I'm firmly of the opinion that the deletion of a particular page should NOT be decided by people who need explanations why a particular page is important or significant. Let's leave that to the experts on that particular topic. E.g. I don't know much (or care) about chemistry or history, so I won't go and suggest chemistry or history related pages for deletion, precisely because I don't have a clue about what's important and what isn't. I'm leaving that to the experts who are maintaining those pages and rely on their decisions. GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether it's important. Tons of this are "important if you're interested in XYZ". We're not talking about erasing this information from the internet. The question is whether it rises to a notable topic (in the sense of WP:N) such that it should be on Wikipedia as opposed to some other wiki, site with information about games, etc. Wikipedia isn't all things that are useful to people. In fact, we have a bit written about that (WP:ITSUSEFUL). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have written above (and which you have failed to acknowledge), the answer on why MT-32 support is more notable than other sound standards is provided in the ["Music for PC games" section of the Roland MT-32 article]. Furthermore, as I have also explained, it is very uncommon to list the notability of a list on the list's article page itself, since the notability of the list largely is a consequence of the notability of the subject enumerated by the list. You have failed to acknowledge that aspect as well. Overall, the deletionists' case here relies on making blanket statements linking to the most general versions of Wikipedia policy while deliberately ignoring both the points that were already raised and how this list compares to the many similar lists that I have already linked to. I suggest that anybody who feels the need to excrete yet another pointless link to "WP:N" to this discussion page first take the time to actually read the points that were made. NewRisingSun (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is about coverage in independent reliable sources. But more saliently, you're pointing me to a section of an article with no sourcing whatsoever. Notability isn't "what's important" or "what's useful" but "what has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". If there have been various articles, etc. about the MT-32 and games, that's what will persuade the evil "deletionists". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will you acknowledge notability of the list if I add references for the particular existing statements in the "Music for PC games" section? Otherwise, I shall not waste my time on this any more, as you would be making impossible-to-fulfill demands. And don't give me any crap like "it would be a start" -- either "yes, would make it notable", or "no, would not be sufficient for me." NewRisingSun (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you've perhaps had some traumatic experience at AfD in the past. Sorry about that, but I'm not your enemy. Note, btw, that I haven't done a boldtext !vote here. This just seems like something more appropriate for a different site, but I'm happy to be shown otherwise (it's also not just up to me -- I'm just one person). You don't have to edit the article, even -- all anyone has to do is link some articles that satisfy WP:GNG/WP:LISTN here in this discussion, or to show that this would be due weight to include in the main article if it hadn't been spun out. As long as they're reliable (evidence of things like fact-checking, editorial oversight, a good reputation for accuracy, etc.), then that should suffice. I'm not going to give some blanket assurance because I have no idea what you're going to link, and people frequently put forward e.g. fansites, self-published sources, non-independent sources, etc. as evidence of notability when they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be adding one or two references to "Computer Gaming World" from the early 1990s, and to Sierra On-Line catalogues for the Sierra-specific statements, to the existing statements in "Music for PC Games"; I would not be adding any new statements.

If it cannot be predicted with a degree of certainty whether this, or any given sourced statement, will or will not trigger notability, then that is a sign that "notability" in this context is a concept too nebulous to concern oneself with. In this context, I alert you to this revealing statement from [6]: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")." In short: good luck, you will need it.

Also, contradicting your statement that usefulness does not confer notability, the same policy page also states that "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", followed by the incomprehensible sentence "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself." What do I learn from this? At least in the context of lists, the notability requirement is a complete shitshow, causing not traumatization, but certainly frustration. NewRisingSun (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my above comment. GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we cannot have lists that cannot be properly sourced. Full stop. WP:V is non-negotiable. None of the keep arguments are even coming close to acknowledging or addressing this fatal shortcoming. We don't keep articles based on vague grumblings about not liking to delete things, or finding thing personally useful. There are WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOTCATALOGUE concerns too, but there's no point in even delving into all of that if you've got a list you can't even reliably source. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what on earth makes you think that it "cannot" be properly sourced? If you cannot tell the difference between "is not sourced" and "cannot be sourced", you should not be participating in a deletion discussion. You also failed to acknowledge that not all of the arguments here are "vague grumblings about not looking to delete things, or finding things personally useful". NewRisingSun (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying I don't believe it can be reliably sourced. The keep arguments haven't cited a single valid policy/guideline/essay/anything, nor have they provided a single reliable source that shows that the grouping is discussed by reliable sources (WP:LISTN). The deletion nomination voices valid concerns, and every keep argument has basically been an WP:ATA or WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have cited several potential sources and plenty of policy, in particular in my response to Rhododendrites, and you are doing yourself no favors just pretending that it is not there. If you think that those do not qualify, then tell me with sufficient specificity why they don't qualify, and what exactly instead would. The vague policy pages you lazily linked to certainly do not provide that answer. NewRisingSun (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please repost the ones you specifically think satisfy LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that I don't know what it means to "satisfy LISTN" in light of LISTN's statement that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y").", and challenge you to be able to tell whether any source satisfies it or not in that absence of consensus. I also said that "I would be adding one or two references to "Computer Gaming World" from the early 1990s". For example: "Re-Sounding Personal Computers" by Rich Heimlich, Computer Gaming World Issue 12/1990, pg. 60pp: "The MT-32 is based on MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface), a standard already established in the music industry. It uses a technology known as linear Arithmetic Synthesis which enables the MT-32 to generate 32 voices of sound. Not only does the MT-32 have 21 more voices than an AdLib card, but it also benefits from the superior LAS technology. This allows for the most realistic sound available in computer gaming today. The MT-32 is like having a complete orchestra in your computer. It is so impressive that when this reviewer recently played Space Quest III using an MT-32, his jaw almost dropped to the floor. The experience is like living a dream." Is that sufficient notability? I am not going to waste time on more sources if it becomes clear that nothing will satisfy this (in the context of lists) nebulous requirement. And that you stated that you don't believe that it can be reliably sourced strongly hints at that outcome. I suppose it would help if you could write a hypothetical sentence that if properly sourced would make the "grouping" notable, because I beginning to have no idea anymore what it means for a "grouping to be notable". NewRisingSun (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources would be helpful for the notability of the parent Roland MT-32 article, but they don't help the list article in sourcing entries or establishing LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Explain it, damnit!!! I asked you what exactly would establish LISTN according to your nebulous criteria, and you refuse to answer that question for three posts now. Also, suddenly you are now pulling the "help the list article in sourcing entries" out of the bag, which was not talked about before. I already explained that individual entries *to* the list article are easily sourced with links to box scans that list MT-32 support, which are easily available. My god, you deletionists are impossible. NewRisingSun (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far you have sourced how each thing in the list is notable. But why is the list important or notable. Sergecross has given you sources and information about the articles lack of notability and policies, either in this thread, or the other ones above it. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sympathetic to the fact that some of Wikipedia's rules are difficult to understand. But it's not particularly the duty of AFD participants (let alone someone who opposes your stance) to teach you Wikipedia policies. I'm not required to do anything more than give a policy-based stance and explain it well enough that the closing admin can understand it. I am not your mentor, teacher, or parent. Its up to you to learn, understand, and apply policy. That said, part of the issue here isn't even Wikipedia jargon. It's that there's a disconnect between your source(s) and the discussion taking place here today. You presented a fine source for explaining the notability of the subject of the Roland MT-32. That would have been a great piece of evidence if someone had nominated the Roland MT-32 article itself for deletion. But the Roland MT-32 article is not up for deletion. The list of games is. Your sources don't contribute anything to the games list itself. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since Wikipedia user User:PerryPerryD has now abusively opened a frivolous [SPI investigation], I cannot carry on with this discussion any longer for my sanity. The list had already been copied to a different website as a back-up, and I have now replaced the link on the main MT-32 page with a link to it. NewRisingSun (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My SPI was opened in suspiscion due to the similarities between the comments. Which I now see were falsely made suspiscions. I do not want this to affect the AFD request. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a good-faith SPI is not a problem even if you're wrong, and has no bearing on AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! | Talk 15:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Warden[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Local interest only in deceased duelist. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last three paragraphs of this article are devoted to the subject. There's also a recent article in a local newspaper, here. There were also reports in several newspapers at the time of the duel: see here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned in this book (a paragraph and some verses by his widow on p. 310). And a page and a half in this book on pp. 66-67. Both sources were listed in the article, and yet they aren't mentioned by the nominator. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious -- This individual is wholly NN, except that he died in a duel. Duelling was illegal, so that I would have liked to know what the consequences were for the other party. Are deaths through duelling notable enough to warrant an article? I have no issue with its sourcing . Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO1E. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The duel was a notable event, and has received significant coverage. It is covered in newspapers at the time, and in two book-length histories over a hundred years later. The sources also describe the duellist's distinguished naval career in nineteen battles, and he's clearly the main focus of all the sources, so it makes sense to have an article on the man rather than the duel. But this could quite easily be turned into an article about the duel and renamed, if others think that is a better way to present the information. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the significance of the man or the duel. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the sources linked above? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well one of them didn't work for me. The newspaper article said that he was a naval hero, but the article doesn't say anything about that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this book. The duel itself may be the better title and focus of this article. Do you think the sources I've linked above do not provide sigcov of the duel? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages in a book about the area? No. Besides, what's there to say? Two neighbours argued and fought a duel; one died, the other fled. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the 4 other sources I linked above which none of the delete voters have even mentioned... 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His naval career and other aspects of his life are also covered in detail in this recent article, which calls him a "naval hero". Only about a third of it is devoted to the duel. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those arguing to delete please analyze the sources provided?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If he had a "distinguished naval career" we should be seeing more distinguishing stuff about it. The duel is interesting, but not terribly notable. I'd don't think he'd be at GNG without the duel, not sure that adds much to it. If he wasn't in the Navy, a guy who dies in a duel but does nothing outside of that wouldn't be GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think the sources above don't give significant coverage? The last source I linked goes into his naval career in some detail. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine source, but it seems to be the only one about the Navy, I didn't consider the ones discussing the duel particularly detailed. He was in the English Navy, I'd expect something to be found in the Royal Navy archives if he was that "distinguised". It's almost at GNG, if we had another source for the naval information I'd feel more comfortable offering a GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough for notability: there were reports of the duel at the time across the country, for example Caledonian Mercury - Monday 07 May 1792 (registration reqd), Notes and Queries from 1924 has a couple of pages about the duel and seems he was regarded as a naval hero: Catching smugglers, an expedition against the French and intercepting merchant ships... the fascinating tale of a naval hero and Illustrated talk on Charmouth’s village’s tragic naval hero Piecesofuk (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - sorry, but I can't see anything beyond local interest here. James Warden doesn't seem to be notable in any wider sense, despite a couple of over-enthusiastic headlines, and the duel doesn't seem to meet WP:EVENT. Ingratis (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet GNG. This source from Piecesofuk is significant. Here's another book which discusses his navy career, although I don't have access to much of it. Here's another book that discusses his duel, also not mentioned so far. This (unsourced but) detailed article discusses his navy career (he captained the HM Adventure (verification) and the HM Wells (verification)), and much more. In light of Ficaia's earlier findings, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b, do you think so? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't agree. None of these goes beyond local interest. The main source of information is the memorial inscription in the churchyard; the rest are passing mentions only (he commanded X ship, he commanded Y ship: not notable), not the coherent accounts / research that would satisfy GNG. The story of the duel is repeated with very few changes from one source to another, and is on the level of a curiosity, sparked by the unusually long memorial inscription. The story in the Bridport News is about a local talk, and repeats pretty much the same information plus some extra genealogy. Not everything old is notable, however often it's repeated. Ingratis (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant coverage, according to GNG, is that which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. It would certainly be nice to have more detail; but what we have is enough to write a balanced, accurate, and sufficiently-detailed article, which is what GNG is, in part, intended to ensure. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frankly it light of the sourcing presented in this discussion I think WP:GNG is easily met. Sources found the man sufficiently of note to write about him during his life, at his death, and again more than 120 years later. Ficaia's sourcing alone is in my opinion sufficient, and the Bridport News story cements it. I think that the man is more notable than the duel; while it wouldn't be enough alone, his naval career, including twice holding command at sea, adds to his notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns![edit]

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

Single source, no evidence this passes GNG or SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its sequel, Unicorns II, is similarly sourced only to the same website. Should it be bundled into this AfD? – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the AfD for Unicorns II. Disregard my comment. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a full review in Mythlore (JSTOR 26811490), and three further mentions in Proquest. It's got a pretty stellar contributor list, though possibly the works were all published elsewhere first. Given the date (1982), I'd be very surprised if there were not another review somewhere offline or not in the Ebsco/Proquest searches. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Unicorns II here. The number of popular and award-winning authors in each anthology suggests that a WP:BAND criterion 6 situation applies here, but I believe GNG is met regardless. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable anthology. And agree with merging Unicorns II with this article.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Unicorns II. I believe the WP:GNG is met but even more as a series. Archrogue (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with seasoning Star Mississippi 19:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lingerie Fighting Championships[edit]

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

Already been deleted twice as being promotional/non-notable and continually recreated. Needs a community consensus to decide if it should be an article all not. The sources found, as well as those listed do nothing more than simply WP:PROMOTE the event, whether it be advertising or interviews with associated people. No indication this is notable enough. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, Boxing, and Wrestling. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional mess. The sources that discuss the LFC in detail aren't reliable, and the reliable sources don't discuss the league in detail. Full of press releases masquerading as news pieces. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional. TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as before, there's no evidence of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Clearly promotional, Alex-h (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devoke water 21:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt still not notable, so WP:SALT it to prevent re-creation again. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FabFitFun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this for Deletion since two previous participants have been blocked as socks and it is still the same position that none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Pinging previous participants Ari T. Benchaim, Falcon Kirtaran, SWinxy, 4meter4. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the same rationale as before, that the coverage is all routine and mostly not in reliable sources. I will point out that the few sources that are acceptable point to run of the mill scandals (like the data breach) that I would be on the fence about having an article about, but the article is instead highly positive, spins the scandals, and suggests possible COI. That the previous AfD was tampered with is frustrating, especially combined with that, and I am glad the socks were uncovered. Thanks for renominating! FalconK (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a very large and well written/structured source table analysis in the talk page Talk:FabFitFun written by @Valereee: that is worth examining. Assuming its not been updated to much. Well, its not to have been updated since the table was written. Good work Valereee. scope_creep^Talk
- I second that. What a detailed and thorough source analysis, @Valereee:. FalconK (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only socking in an AfD but likely UPE creation of this article by the sock. Jeez. Thanks for the kind comments about the source assessment table, HighKing improved greatly on my original work! Valereee (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source analysis table results leaves no room for doubt. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 19:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the source analysis table on the article's talk page from the previous AfD. The article fails WP:GNG, as all of the references are in some way problematic or fail to establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PreviewNetworks[edit]

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

Orphaned article about a non-notable defunct company, tagged since 2011 as a possible WP:COI violation (the article was created by User:Previewnetworks and is that user's only contribution). —Bkell (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- essentially per nom. Sources don't meet NCORP and defunct status means it isn't going anywhere. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. Blue Edits (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current sources are routine announcements on minor acquisitions, trailers, and expansions, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. A WP:BEFORE search did not find more sources contributing to notability, hence WP:NCORP is failed. VickKiang (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Brave_Bison#Preview_Networks: As noted above, a likely WP:COI article on a defunct company; it was acquired by Rightster/Brave_Bison and then closed down. There is a 2007 article about what was then Play Networks but that is effectively a description of a start-up proposition, funding, etc; I am unconvinced that it demonstrates that notability had been attained. Given the acquisition summary in the Brave Bison article, a redirect is a feasible WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As outdated promotional. --Suitskvarts (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kaler[edit]

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

Notability is a possible pass, but there is little significant coverage of him. The only sources presented on this article are his own website and IMDB, which the first is primary and the second we have an essay about using as a source. If saved, the article, save for the filmography sections, should be TNT'd. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and United States of America. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject appears to have worked quite extensively on TV, in films, and as a television host. He had a 4-year stint on My Boys, and has appeared in either main or supporting roles in several movies, including the 2021 List of a Lifetime (see this Deadline reference). There's also a CNN write-up (here), which references another film he appeared in, The Wicked. I think there's enough here to pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your analysis as well. Jamie is listed as one of the main casts at My Boys, with the CNN write-up (despite being interview format and insufficient for GNG) referring to his role in two short paragraphs, potentially indicating this counts as a significant role per WP:NACTOR. However, the role in The Wicked is not a significant role, also shown by CNN's one-sentence mention. Further, at List of a Lifetime Jamie is just listed as one of the 12 cast members (IMHO likely not significant), further, the Deadline ref trivially mentions Jamie while listing members who joined the cast later. This IMO is not a significant role, but let's respectfully disagree. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (revised) for reasons Dflaw4 gives. Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits ~~on IMDb~~, an additional indicator of notability. 5Q5|^✉ 13:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through my IMDb mention since it seems to be upsetting to the discussion. My replies below occurred before this revision. 5Q5|^✉ 11:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5Q5, IMDb is not an indicator of notability. Anyone with a YouTube channel (or even without one) can create a profile of themselves calling themself an actor, writer or director. It's completely user-generated and there is no verification involved of whether information is factually accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CNN link and his significant appearance profile as shows in IMDB. Moresdi (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:IMDB. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I do not put much weight in these Keep votes, arguing that IMDb is a reliable source judging notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. WP:NACTOR states an actor is notable if they Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The actor probably had a significant role in My Boys, which is notable and has a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, I couldn't see other roles that obviously meets significant roles. On WP:GNG- unfortunately, the Deadline ref only mentions this person three times while listing the cast (non-SIGCOV). Further, the CNN ref is announcement-like with primarily quotes, and is IMO only debatably WP:SIGCOV. My WP:BEFORE search found lots of hits on News where Jamie is listed as a cast member, but these are trivial and insufficient in my opinion for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Finally, sorry but there is established consensus on WP:RSP that IMDb isn't RS and doesn't contribute to notability, see also a related RfC at RSN. One of the keep votes asserted that I've been a registered editor at IMDb for nearly 20 years. It is not like Wikipedia or social media. All content submitted to the site via a form process requires approval by staff before they publish it. Nothing is published directly by users. Even Wikipedia's own article on Amazon-owned IMDb acknowledges these points on their talk page. However, it appears that they might have neglected or didn't read WP:RSP's statement that Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking, which is reflected by numerous discussions. Also, being a WP:EXPERT on IMDb to me shouldn't trump longstanding consensus, though let's respectfully disagree. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding the above comments about IMDb, neither of the Keep voters who have referred to IMDb has relied on IMDb itself to assert that the notability guidelines are met. 5Q5 simply referenced IMDb in passing. The point that I believe 5Q5 was making was that the subject has appeared as himself 21 times, and that's an indicator of notability—that is, appearing as oneself. It is the 21 self-credits—not the mere existence of an IMDb page—that is indicative of notability. Moresdi doesn't argue that simply having an IMDb page goes towards notability, either, but rather makes the point that the subject has a significant list of credits. Again, IMDb was only referenced in passing. Therefore, I believe that the rebuttal arguments which are being made—and which, in effect, say that the existence of an IMDb page does not go towards notability—are misdirected. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: Apologies but I don't believe my comment is misdirected. A significant list of credits to me is irrelevant as most of them aren't significant roles but minor roles appearing in only a couple of episodes. Which of the roles in your opinion meets WP:NACTOR? Further, I've seen 5Q5 frequently only refer to IMDb in their AfD comments, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Gallagher, where they list IMDb as the only rationale, which to me is contrary to your interpretation. After Liz's query, they stated that I've been a registered editor at IMDb for nearly 20 years. It is not like Wikipedia or social media. All content submitted to the site via a form process requires approval by staff before they publish it. Nothing is published directly by users. Even Wikipedia's own article on Amazon-owned IMDb acknowledges these points, which to me is affirming IMDb is reliable. Therefore, I disagree with your interpretation, Dflaw4. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: Note: I've left a query at User talk:5Q5, I might amend my comment after their reply. Thanks for your time and efforts to keep this article! VickKiang (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dflaw4 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from 5Q5: I only recently started voting in these actor/filmmaker AfDs (not inclined to going forward) so I was unfamiliar with the bias and perpetuated false assumptions about IMDb and how it actually works, since I have long experience on how it actually does. For instance, you can't add a birthdate or death date without providing strong confirmable sources. You can't create an IMDb profile for yourself and call yourself an actor or director. You can create a resume on IMDbPro, a paid service, and if that shows up on regular IMDb it indicates as such. Even Pro content has to be approved though, no direct user publishing.

IMDb FAQ: How can I provide proof that my submission is valid? Please keep in mind that we require verification of on-screen billing. In other words, we do not just want verification that you were involved in the making of a film -- we want evidence that your name appears in the main or end titles. Cast/crew call sheets, contracts, payment receipts, etc. are not evidence of on-screen billing. If you are able to prove that the credit does appear on screen (e.g., by providing a screener copy or a screen grab of the credits or similar materials), please contact us and we'll give you further instructions.

My opinion on the current IMDb is that it has improved its verification standards significantly with change of ownership (Amazon purchase) and is generally reliable with no direct publishing by users. I do not intend to change my vote in this particular AfD and if there is another vote on IMDb's reliability down the road I would appreciate a note informing me on my talk page so that I may participate. Thank you. 5Q5|^✉ 11:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: So 5Q5 really believes that IMDb is generally reliable with no direct publishing by users... would you disagree with their assessment? I was unfamiliar with the bias and perpetuated false assumptions about IMDb and how it actually works, since I have long experience on how it actually does- yourself being a WP:EXPERT on IMDb doesn't outweigh longstanding consensus. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how IMDb works in terms of publishing content. I would agree that the lists of credits you find there seem to be reliable, and IMDb is likely the starting point for most of us in these WP:NACTOR AfDs, to gauge just how much work the subject has done. But again, I don't think that was the point that 5Q5 was making. They said: "Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits on IMDb, an additional indicator of notability." I don't think the in-passing reference to IMDb ("on IMDb") was the point being made as regards notability, but rather the fact that the subject has appeared as himself in 21 TV productions. The "on IMDb" doesn't really add to the argument that was being made. 5Q5 could have simply written, "Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits, an additional indicator of notability," thereby omitting "on IMDb", and it wouldn't have changed the point they were making. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: Thanks again for your detailed reply! 5Q5, just to clarify again would you agree to just omit the by IMDb part but still vote keep? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I know that your views on IMDb are not accurate. I go through hundreds of expiring drafts each day, many of them are autobiographies and almost everyone of them links their social media accounts and their IMDb profile. When I look at their IMDb profiles, they are inevitably listing videos they made for YouTube channels, they are not actors, writers and directors in films or TV series. Many people with IMDb profiles are not paid professionals. They use their IPhones to make videos and then call themselves "a series creator". I have also been active on IMDb for decades and no change or addition I submitted ever required verification. IMDB is user-generated and I think anyone who has more than a few subscribers on their YouTube channels has an IMDb profile for themselvse. I'm sure that there are higher standards on IMDbPro because it is a paid service but not on the regular IMDb site.

But you know, it doesn't matter what you think and what I think, on Wikipedia, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and that's what counts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to register to edit at IMDb and see if I am acurately describing the submission process. If IMDb does not request confirmation sourcing (they have your email when you register) it is because they were able to verify it themselves. Notability in 2022 doesn't necessarily involve old-school theatrical films and TV shows. This is my final post in this AfD. I have voted, I'm done. 5Q5|^✉ 11:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why we can't use IMDb. Anyone can submit anything. You can use it to confirm the role, but it should be cross-referenced to something else that confirms it. It's good for looking up facts, but not for sourcing here in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you would like to argue that IMDB is a RS, WP:RSN is the correct venue. Until there is a consensus from a wide net of people, we must stick to the controlling consensus at WP:IMDB.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The CNN article is fine, he seems to host a show in the American Heroes Channel [7], which would seem to be two significant roles. Somewhat flimsy TV show he hosts, but it's there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying the source confirming the tv show hosting job is notable, but it's confirmation of a major role on TV, which is. Semi-RS confirming a job he had (we could probably find a TV Guide listing confirming the same thing). Oaktree b (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production- to clarify are you stating that the two roles are: a) the My Boys role and b) the American Heroes Channel: America Facts VS Fiction one? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Those are the two roles I found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. We might have different interpretations, but from Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production I personally see this as that the television show should be notable- as in it has multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources that constitute of significant coverage.

From what I see Jamie hosted American Heroes Channel: America Facts VS Fiction. While he had a significant role in the show (satisfying one part of the criteria), I don't think the show is a notable television show (the other part) as I didn't find refs demonstrating Facts VS Fiction is notable. However, if you could find more refs on the show, please ping me and I could strike my weak delete vote. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says that he has gained fame by portraying the character Mike Callahan on the TBS comedy My Boys. Gained fame? Hmmm. The reference for that extraordinary claim is an interview with him and the link is dead. Much of this discussion is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NACTOR. Meeting a special notability guideline like that is a presumption or likelihood of notability, not a guarantee. What is required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. This debate has been going on for three weeks, and nobody has been able to come up with a single source that meets that standard. The CNN source begins with Comedians are talking funny to CNN about various topics, and we offer them for laughs in this feature of CNN Comedy. It is a blend of an interview and a comedy performance, is clearly not independent and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. It is entertainment, not journalism. The bottom line is that he is a low level working actor and comedian who had a four year run as the sixth billed actor on a sitcom, but has never became notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: There's an archived version of that source here, but surprise surprise, it doesn't support the claim made. SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below is some coverage I found. Not the greatest but at the very least there should be a redirect to his main show. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson, Dan (8 November 2007), "He gets laughs, just being himself", Antioch Review

Vitello, Barbara (2 November 2007), "High seas to Hollywood Comedian Jamie Kaler trades Navy ship - for sitcom", Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)

Lee, Luaine (11 June 2008), "Just being one of the boys is no stretch for comedy actor", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It has been a month and opinions continue to differ. I do not see a consensus emerging. Star Mississippi 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Imeon[edit]

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

It is not clearly established that this is a name or even alternative name for the collection of mountains in question in common English usage. The term, variously linked to the Hindu Kush, Pamir, Tian Shan and Zagros mountains does not seem to be based on serious geographical works, but rather consists of WP:SYNTH combining real place names with unsupported ancient Greek etymologies and suppositions based on a single ancient Armenian map, which when viewed, does not even appear to display the name in its English translation. It is unclear where most of the largely unverifiable information is coming from. The name "Imeon" does not even appear to be present in most of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Asia. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this name is clearly visible on google books, including in Academic publications: check here. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jingiby: There appears to be no tangible definition. There are various pop history references, but when it gets down to it, everything from the Pamir Mountains to Tian Shan to Hindu Kush seem to be fingered as possible candidates - it's a frankly startling array of ambiguity. It should be noted that in the current article, the idea that "Emavon", as appearing in Suren T. Eremian's map, means "Imeon" is not even attested by any source, so would appear to be a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Roof of the World as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind this idea, since this seems in a very (very!) broad sense what the term 'Mount Imeon' seems to vaguely finger. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia: As noted in Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries: "Several different views exist on the location of Imeon. It could be the Tian Shan, Pamir, Pamir and Tian Shan, or the entire mountain range of the Tian Shan... - one way or another, it seems to be in the Roof of the World ballpark. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's telling that not a single tertiary reference, even in the Encyclopedia Iranica (the most apt), could be found for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced article that has stood for 14 years without challenge. I sense an element of nationalism in this nomination, which is and always has been a pox on wikipedia. W C M_email 06:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: You sense incorrectly (wildly so). I came across this article while cleaning up listed fringe theories. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with what appears to me to be reliable sources being removed and cited content being removed during a deletion review. Best to leave it while the process runs its course, if you're right the article will be deleted anyway. W C M_email 09:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: I removed unsupported statements, sources that failed verification and other material that did not mention the subject at all. I would honestly have to question whether you even fact-checked the explanations in the edit summaries for even a second before reverting. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article won't necessarily "be deleted anyway" if editors defend it based on no policy or independent verification. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, Wee Curry Monster has insisted on twice restoring unverified and unconnected material [8][9], without claiming to have verified the material themselves. When it gets down to it, it seems that the entire article rests on one single source, this map: [10], which actually uses the term "Emavon" for the various ranges in question. There does not seem to be a shred of information in the article that does not ultimately build, in a WP:SYNTH-like manner, on this image. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on content, not on editors. I am not leaving angry messages on people's talk pages, nor do I have a 2 week block in my block history for violating a topic ban. And for the record., I restored cited content removed by you, after checking that IMHO it was sourced. This appeared to be an attempt to reduce an article to a stump during a deletion discussion to sway opinion. I could be wrong, other editors may disagree with my assessment but I put my faith in the community to come to the right decision. I suggest you do the same and not create personal conflict. W C M_email 10:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: Ahem. You did leave an very undue warning on my talk page for alleged edit warring, when the only one who has done any reverting on the page is yourself. And here we have more aspersions. You have made a keep vote based on no policy and refuse to explain it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect [11] I restored material, you removed material again [12], ignoring a clear edit summary explaining my concerns. You were edit warring to remove material so a warning was appropriate, in fact is a requirment of our WP:3RR policy. And I have explained my comment, it is bad faith to assert I have not. Please stop this confrontational attitude. W C M_email 13:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: Sorry dude, that's different material, so I reverted zilch, while you reverted twice. I didn't notice your first revert precisely because I was editing different parts of the article, so there was no edit clash. This bad faith talk is some serious pot kettle black action. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced article with a real subject. Jingiby (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least redirect to Roof of the World. There seem to be enough sources to merit a standalone article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, I think this is a reasonable compromise should the article be deleted. I think it's good enough to keep though, but I could be convinced otherwise.~Junedude433 (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus to delete this article so the debate is whether it is more appropriate to Keep or Redirect this article. Please no further speculation about editor's motivations but it would be counter-productive to remove sourced content from an article undergoing a review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important place and worth its own article. This is taught is Schools, hence, this is notable. It is also a geographical place covering wide areas. I don't see any reason for its deletion.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 17:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's enough sources that a stand-alone article is appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No one can actually be reading the sources, because if they did, they would be finding next to no reliable mentions of the subject. Not inspiring. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely keep since you can even a book about this place. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Iskandar323 I strongly suggest creating a source analysis table. Currently you have made some strong broad claims for why this article should be deleted under policy, but have not directly engaged with individual sources to prove those claims. Likewise the keep voters have made strong claims but have also failed to engage with individual sources to prove those claims. As such I am not seeing a strong argument made on either side that is based in evidence. If the AFD were to close now, the only options would be either keep per majority vote, or no consensus, as no strong argument has been made either way. A redirect would be a possible third option, although not many have supported that option. To move this conversation in a different direction (ie towards a delete outcome) we really do need a source analysis table. While this article is not an organization, the table at WP:SIRS could be used to aid you in a source analysis. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad shout, since it is unclear if everyone has taken the time to closely inspect the sourcing or not. I have erred on the side of generosity regarding significance. @4meter4, @Junedude433: I hope you find this elucidating.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
the map source	?	Y	?	N	?	This reconstructed map certainly mentions an Emavon, but no source has been provided to connect Emavon to Imeon - the two might be the same, but without a source asserting this, it is WP:OR. A 7th-century map is also primary.
The Geography of Ananias of Sirak	?	Y	?	?	?	No page number is provided. 467 is the number of pages. I found an archive.org copy of the work, but it is impossible to determine what the reference might be without reading the whole book. It is primary text with commentary.
Silk Road, North China - history blog	N	Y	N	Y	N	Does not mention the subject by name. About the region in general. Pure WP:SYNTH.
The Travels of Marco Polo, Vol. 1.	N	Y	Y	N	N	Does not mention the subject by name. About the region in general. Pure WP:SYNTH.
History of the Armenians.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	No page number has been provided and the subject does not appear in a search of the text. More likely WP:SYNTH.
SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica	?	Y	?	Y	?	Not about the subject but the name of a mountain range on Smith Island (South Shetland Islands), named after what it attests as the Bulgarian name for a mountain in the present day Pamir and Hindu Kush. One sentence. Pretty trivial.
(in references but not cited) US gov source	?	Y	?	Y	?	Has one line noting the Mount Imeon area as being in the "present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan". Trivial.
(in references but not cited) misc web source	?	Y	?	Y	?	Web source of unclear provenance. Mentions "in the Pamirs and the Hindu Kush around Mount Imai." - I assume this is the reference. Trivial. Again, no source attests that this name is the same name (WP:OR).
(in references but not cited) link to a book contents page	?	Y	?	Y	?	Links to contents page with no page number referenced. Again, impossible to assess without reading the work, as with the other unreferenced, unlinked sourced.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I would request that the discussion be relisted again, so that participants and any new takers can inspect the sourcing more carefully. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Wee Curry Monster, @Jingiby, @Idunnox3, @Ploreky, @𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆, @Hey man im josh, @Idunnox3: Please see the above. I'd be glad to know what I'm missing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This and this, for a start. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that this is already taught in schools alone, means that this is notable. no sources needed.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 07:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this wide place exists means that it is worthy to be on wikipedia. This is nonsense. Anyways, as long as it's a real area and covers a significant population, it's more or less notable enough for Wikipedia. Read WP:NGEO. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 07:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite disconcerting that you have clearly done no fact checking for yourself and are persisting in this. As I did before I did a quick search, which easily turned up numerous valid sources, to whit:

“

One source of the Amu Darya is the Pamir River, which emerges from Lake Zorkul in the Great Pamir Mountain ofAfghanistan (ancient Mount Imeon) East Turkestan to China Sea ca {7,500km} and flowing west to Qila-e Panja. [13]

”

“

... from one of the northernmost provinces under the rule of the Pathans or Mughals, close to the great Mount Imeon, which runs from the Caspian Sea eastward to the eastern Indian Ocean, and which separates Tatary224 from India.[14]

”

“

The Marco Polo sheep is named for the explorer, who described the species during his crossing of Pamir (ancient Mount Imeon) in 1271. Ovis means sheep and ammon is a derivative of Amun, the ancient Egyptian god who was depicted as ... [15]

”

“

In the second century A.D., the Bulgars came to Europe from their old homeland, the Kingdom of Balhara situated in the Mount Imeon area (present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan). The first Bulgarian state was established in 635 A.D., ... [16]

”

I could go on but numerous reliable source are easily found [17].

Of the sources used in the article.

http://www.kroraina.com/ is simply a conglomeration of papers, individually they need to be taken on their merit. The map is from this paper [18], to me it seems reasonably reliable.
[19] is clearly a reliable source, also found on google books [20]. The accusation that the ISBN has been falsified is a bad faith presumption, it is easy to make a transcription error, I've done so myself.
[21] is perfectly valid for citing the route of the silk road, the fact it doesn't mention Imeon is irrelevant; this is not WP:SYNTH.
[22] is perfectly valid for citing the route of the silk road, the fact it doesn't mention Imeon is irrelevant; this is not WP:SYNTH.
[23] valid cite for the subject it is supporting; this is not WP:SYNTH.
[24] valid cite for the subject it is supporting; this is not WP:SYNTH.
[25] Clearly mentions Mount Imeon and location. I note this has been labelled by Iskander as "failed verification".

I stand by my original assessment that there are sufficient reliable sources already in the article to merit keep, there are plenty of reliable sources to expand the article and provide additional cites if needed. This does not need to be relisted and I will not change my comment. Iskander needs to drop the stick and step away from the deceased horse. W C M_email 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to give this a relist due to the source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and failing WP:SIGCOV. I have to agree with the source analysis that the sourcing here is not sufficiently in-depth enough or direct enough to to meet WP:SIGCOV, and that it is collectively compiled in a way that amounts to original synthesis/ original research. Part of the issue here is that many of the sources are primary sources, or the sources being used are by historic writers which in my opinion should also be treated as primary sources given their age and the need for placing the materials into better context (work that would be done by a historical researcher writing on this term). If we had better contemporary sources addressing the topic directly and in detail, there would be a strong keep argument. As it is, a collection of passing mentions which do not define the term as clearly as what is given here, and bunch of primary materials being used to source the content as written is by definition WP:Original research. That said, I am not opposed to a redirect to Roof of the world providing the term is briefly mentioned in a single sentence on that page.4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per source analysis table and subsequent analysis by User:Wee Curry Monster. There is clearly enough "gray area" (I am counting six sources that do not definitively fail WP:GNG) that we can’t say the WP:SIGCOV is not present. Frank Anchor 18:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StayPlain[edit]

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

10 months old application that fails the general notability guidelines. I believe that this is too soon. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Ghana. Reading Beans (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources are promotional fluff and I see no indication of notability anywhere else. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still wondering how you understand the notability guidelines of wikipedia.

Someone designed and launch an app, and the ghanaian media picked it up, and that becomes a promotional fluff?? You think the app does not deserve to be talked about in the news? or yours is just the normal racist attitude towards anything Africa. Pteph Lon (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but let me show you what I'm talking about. This article is about only about 320 words. Of those 320 words, over half are a direct quote from the app-builder and the rest are basic and overly promotional descriptions of the app: Stayplain is the new way to communicate with friends and family and serves as the most advanced and innovative social media platform is entirely promotional. This piece is similar. It actually cites the Pulse.com.gh piece, which isn't great, but it's entirely written as though it's promoting the app. That's not a reliable source by our standards, and doesn't help to show the app is notable. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I understand your point now bro, and sorry for my outburst. I will get other relevant sources to support the article Pteph Lon (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi snr, i have made some correction. Have cited new sources. Please, kindly check it out so we can reach an agreement Pteph Lon (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few reliable sources available, the ones cited in the article aren't really independent or reliable. The "pulse" one for example isn't a news source or anything like that, they're an ad agency: [26]. Google turns up basically nothing useful. --Jayron 32 17:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're good. I have made the needed corrections and added new citation sources. Please, kindly check it out so we can reach an agreement. Thanks Pteph Lon (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get you at all. What shows that the app doesn't meet the notability guidelines?? This is an article i will be inviting other wikipedians to contribute to. Your only problem is that you haven't heard about the app before, and hence your believe that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines.

You think you're the only one that read and understand the notability guidelines? or you think some of us just stand up and put anything on wikipedia? Pteph Lon (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and describing Pulse Ghana as an ad agency makes me feel so sad. Pulse Ghana that is owned by a Turkish media giant with sister media companies in Kenya, Nigeria, Turkey etc?? Pteph Lon (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the About Us page on Pulse Ghana does emphasize its marketing services and the parent site, pulse.africa, doesn't highlight its media operations separately from its marketing services. Do you know if the editorial side of Pulse's operations are kept independent from its marketing services? — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON. The current coverage seems either based off press releases[27] or repetitive/questionably independent of each other.[28][29][30] It may well develop in a way that meets GNG, but it doesn't appear to be there yet. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources can be provided. The Yen.com source is based only on statements by the developer, and therefore is not independent. Pulse Ghana is an advertising and marketing company. Advertising and marketing activities are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sir. I am working to get other relevant sources to make the article better. Thanks for your concern, snr Pteph Lon (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Szymon Zachwieja[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search didn't bring up any third party, reliable source to establish notability. Doesn't meet GNG. If any sources do come to light, please ping me. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, no pl wiki interwiki, zero results from GScholar/GBooks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't find a hint of notability in the article itself, or in its 1.5 references, or on the web. --Suitskvarts (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 S. P. Balasubrahmanyam#1960s–1970s. ✗plicit 13:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emiyee Vinta Moham[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You'd think this could probably be merged into S. P. Balasubrahmanyam#1960s–1970s, given how short the article is – that paragraph about the artist's career already mentions that it was his debut song and includes the same source as this article about a rare photo of the recording session existing. The two lines about newspapers hailing the song after his death could easily be added there. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have redirected to that, except it's such an important song, it's not even mentioned there. But would have no issue with this being redirected there, then anyone with interest could add the information. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned actually, in the first line of that paragraph. Richard3120 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. My bad. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S. P. Balasubrahmanyam#1960s–1970s. Fails WP:NSONG per Richard's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikemba Chisom Sophia[edit]

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

Article about a comedian, entrepreneur or model as the case maybe that fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — was about to nominate for A7. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources aren't showing up for this one, outside of what's in the article. A few very brief PR-style writings are passing around the news aggregators in Nigeria, stuff like this, but nothing to show WP:GNG-level coverage. --Jayron 32 18:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Entertainment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hangin' Tough (Waylon Jennings album). ✗plicit 13:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallin' Out[edit]

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

This is a single that fails WP:NSONGS as there are only two sources listed in the article and there is rarely any coverage. Despite it charting, the song overall does not seem to have any significant notability. --Fullmoon211 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song is notable, as it charted for 21 weeks on Billboard's US Hot Country Songs. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is of stub standards, a charted single means it is notable. GR86 (📱) 13:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct – see below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hangin' Tough (Waylon Jennings album): despite significant charting, this single doesn't appear to have anything else going for it notability-wise per my own search, and charting alone does not make notability. QuietHere (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hangin' Tough (Waylon Jennings album). Yes it charted. But WP:NSONG states that this is only an indication that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. If there really is no other information about the song apart from chart positions, then it probably shouldn't be kept – the chart positions already exist at Waylon Jennings singles discography#1980s so the information wouldn't be lost, and we really don't need a separate article just to repeat this information if we aren't going to add anything to it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hangin' Tough (Waylon Jennings album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Charting can be covered in the album. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butters' Tavern[edit]

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

No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New Hampshire. PepperBeast (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and History. Skynxnex (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flowery language and largely unsourced claims. I can only find passing mentions of the place talking about the beer named after it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm generally one for saving articles whenever possible, but this business/building doesn't have that much going for it and it's largely being used as a coatrack for non-notable stuff. Jahaza (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on prose grounds, if nothing else. KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandla (app)[edit]

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

This article has 10 references - but they are all unsuitable for one reason or another. Cites 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 publish Native advertising. Cites 3, 5, 9 and 10 are press release reposts. Cite 7 is the college newspaper of the school the founder attends. None of these are the independent sources required to demonstrate notability. I believe that this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a personal vendetta against the article since your speedy deletion request was shut down. 1 and 2 don't have any connection to the founder and they are Notable publications in Nigeria. In fact one of the sources is criticizing the app for not including the Hausa language in its launch. Claiming it is a sponsored article is baseless. You also have a history of overzealous deletion on your talk page. 65sugg (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A declined CSD tag often means the article is better discussed at AfD. It's not necessarily a determination on whether the article should be kept or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOUBT WP:DOUBT

"If you are uncertain whether or not an article should be deleted, it is best not to rush to have it deleted. Alternatives should be considered." 65sugg (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - @MrOllie: would you mind elaborating on how the TechCabal source uses native advertising? From what I can see from TechCabal's advertising packages, sponsored content appears clearly marked as such, and the only discussion on RSN that I could find doesn't mention this. Legit.ng absolutely employs native advertising, but I'm wondering how you figured out that TechCabal does too. - Aoidh (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the question raised by Aoidh is valid, but the latest advertising package does include the sentence The TechCabal content marketing team is able to work with clients to put out feature and review articles. The page author has also written press-release-like posts in the past, so I believe this is not close to meeting WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On that PDF and in the examples given in the PDF, pages delivered via that route are clearly marked as "Partner" links, something not present in the source in this article. - Aoidh (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still. It is borderline reliable and it sounds like a press release. Duck test applies. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"borderline reliable" WP:DOUBT WP:DOUBT . There's no evidence to support the claim that it is a press release or that the article on legit.ng is a press release given the fact that it literally criticizes the app 65sugg (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the TechCabal reference is legit barring evidence to the contrary. That being said, if TechCabal is a reliable source in this instance, it is the only one, and I looked for more and came up with nothing. There's a lot of press releases and articles based on press releases, but they're easy to spot because they're all worded the same. Articles require multiple third-party reliable sources, and this article's subject maybe has the one. Because of that, the article fails WP:GNG, and meets none of the criteria of WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos computing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable - all sources are primary sources and research output, i have been unable to find good secondary sources that establish notability. It's been 10 years since the last deletion discussion, and the field doesn't seem to have developed much since then. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. [31][32][33][34] all seem to establish notability. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 2 3 and 4 that you have linked are all by the same group of authors, so coverage of this topic isn't widespread. And there has been little reliable secondary coverage of this topic either - only an MIT tech review article. Wikipedia is not a journal paper aggregator. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? You seem to misunderstand the word "secondary" here. These papers all provide a general overview of the topic instead of reporting raw data, so it is secondary. I don't care if it is same group of authors, I only care if those are by the same author. And no they are not, so therefore we have multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One sourcing requirement for WP:GNG is that sources used to establish notability are independent of each other. If the term is primarily being used within a single research group and hasn't found broader widespread adoption within EECS academia, I think that's not sufficient to establish notability. Please note that I have not started looking into sourcing for this specific topic, (and now that I have, it's clear that this is not the case here; plenty of different researchers and groups are working with this subject) so this isn't meant as a comment on whether or not that's what is happening here, just a general statement on applying GNG. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you are talking about Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Then I would agree. But I would argue that the sources I linked were already enough. They need to be independent of the subject, but that is more about preventing coverage used in return of payments contributing towards GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notability does not expire, if the sources met GNG ten years ago then they still do today (WP:NTEMP). 193.37.240.45 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think tis should have passed GNG back then - see my reply to the other comment. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very familiar with this topic, but I don't see how we can write a neutral encyclopedic article about this, given the limited nature of the sources that are only by a small handful of authors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is obviously a niche topic, but those papers are published in respected peer-reviewed academic journals. No question notability is established. Thparkth (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidently a notable field of research within electrical engineering. In addition to the sources provided by 0xdeadbeef, I found a number of conference proceedings and reviews which discuss it. Chaos in the Real World:Recent Applications to Communications, Computing, Distributed Sensing, Robotic Motion, Bio-Impedance Modelling and Encryption Systems from Symmetry (journal) ([35], access available through WP:TWL) is a synthesis of chaos theory applications across multiple fields which covers chaos computing in section 7. It's been referenced in work occurring outside of EECS too, like in the dynamical systems paper Introduction: Theory of Hybrid Dynamical Systems and Its Applications to Biological and Medical Systems ([36]). Research into the topic spans multiple research groups, institutions, and researchers, as well as being surprisingly broad in applications; there's a group working on applications in logic locking out of UC Davis ([37]), a group working on some subset of map coloring problems out of UH Mānoa ([38]), a group working on side channel attack mitigation with a paper in IEEE conference proceedings ([39]), and so on. It's mentioned in some textbooks as well ([40], [41], [42]), though the coverage here seems less significant. Personally I feel pretty comfortable saying it's a notable field of research. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to draftify or rename can be decided by discussion on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citrine Global[edit]

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

Seems like a SPAC, but is not notable by any standard as a company. Fails WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and Thailand. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify It might be early now because regulatory just passed the merger yesterday between Thailand number 2 and number 3 mobile phone operators to become the new number 1. Here is current google search for Thai name: [43] It will be publicly traded replacing existing 2 stock symbols (TRUE, DTAC) so there will be plenty of news coverage then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerdsuwa (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to True–DTAC merger or something similar, for now. The acquisition itself is the subject of widespread interest and news coverage, even if the significance of the company itself is still unclear. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promise Technology[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Has been tagged as potentially not notable since 2010, other issues since 2012. The article just summarizes routine coverage like product announcements. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Computing, Taiwan, United States of America, and California. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've given editors 10 years to improve the article but nothing but primary sources have come about. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You beat me to it. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much more that I can say beyond "per nom". Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional content masquerading as an article. After a cleanup by another editor there's virtually nothing left. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make it so WP:ARTSPAM lacking coverage to meet inclusion requirements. Per above-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming no independent sources of notability can be found. I had a quick look and it looks dire. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run-of-the-mill company, no in-depth coverage. Thparkth (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH Devoke water 12:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Boyfriend (brand)[edit]

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

Non notable brand, edited by a variety of socks. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Fashion, and Popular culture. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found for this brand, only links to various kidnapping cases for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources provided are almost entirely what they say about themselves outside of the blurb about one their products in CNN. Searching, I only found a couple more blurbs ("gift ideas"). (Note - I only searched "Boredwalk" because at least by 2019 Ex-Boyfriend merged into Boredwalk according the first source, an interview). S0091 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BoAt Lifestyle[edit]

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

Duplicate version exist at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle — Rejected. UPE. RPSkokie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. RPSkokie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources, it is notable. The only problem is it's a stub. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources on it to meet WP:GNG. Although it may require a cleanup and more info in the future. GR86 (📱) 13:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the editors said above. Contributor008 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – It's a stub and needs cleanup, but that doesn't prevent the article from being kept. The sources are adequate for the WP:GNG. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dudhhr, if you could articulate on which of the sources meet WP:NCORP and which parts of the source assessment below you disagree with that would be great! Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @VickKiang: I agree with the source analysis and the delete arguments below. I have struck my keep !vote. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the below source analysis and the WP:PROMO found in the article. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your update. VickKiang (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a review of the sources in the article, per WP:NCORP, which per WP:ORGCRIT provides guidance on how to apply the WP:PROMO section of WP:NOT to articles.
- 1: boAt wants to trade its branding paddle for an IP motor (The Ken, 2021) - this seven-graf article begins with anonymous sources complaining about the company, includes information from boAt’s co-founder Aman Gupta, and discusses raised capital and personnel changes. This does not appear to provide sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability.
- 2: Boat set to float Rs 2,000-crore IPO, eyes $1.5-2 billion valuation (Economic Times, 2022) - this is an example of trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, because it is an announcement and routine coverage of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts [...] expansions, acquisitions, mergers, and a capital transaction and it is not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, so there is insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH to support notability.
- 3: Report on Consumer Devices in India is described in the cite in the article as "Redseer report" but the report does not state this, and instead cites Redseer for some information. I have searched the https://redseer.com website and have not found this report.
- 4: Speakers: boAt in India 2020 Brand Report, March 2022 "This Brand Report covers boAt in the speakers market of India and is based on data from the Statista Global Consumer Survey. Topics include: Customers' demographic profile, Customer lifestyle, Marketing touchpoints" and costs $495. While it is challenging to assess the source without access, the description suggests this source provides WP:CORPDEPTH.
- 5: India Wearable Market Reports Another Record Quarter Shipping 23.8 Million Units In 3Q21, Says IDC, 2021. The WP:CORPDEPTH of this source seems limited at best because it is focused on the market generally, with data about marketshare for various companies, including BoAt.
- 6: Warburg Invests $100 mn in boAt - this is trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, and substantially quotes co-founders of BoAt Gupta and Mehta, as well as BoAt investors Vishal Mahadevia, MD and head, Warburg Pincus India and Kanwaljit Singh, founder and managing partner, Fireside Ventures, so this source also is not sufficient per WP:ORGIND to support notability.
- 7 & 9: How a young Indian brand is beating its Chinese rivals at their own game (Quartz, 2021) - this source lacks WP:ORGIND because it includes quotes from boAt co-founders Gupta and Mehta, and what "boAt has said", but does have more depth than most sources.
- 8: boAt eyes make-in-India push with $100 million from Warburg Pincus - similar to the Hindustan Times source noted above, this is trivial coverage about a capital transaction that also fails WP:ORGIND for its reliance on what "boAt founders Aman Gupta and Sameer Mehta told TOI" and a quote from investor Singh.
- 10: Dixon Tech gains 5% on pact with boAt for new twin wireless speakers (Business Standard, 2021) - this source is subscription blocked but appears to be trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH because it is an announcement of an expansion of business: "Dixon Technologies (India) shares traded 5 per cent higher at Rs 15,214, also their fresh record high, on the BSE on Thursday after the company announced that it has entered into an agreement with Imagine Marketing Private Limited (boAt) for manufacturing of Twin Wireless Speakers."
- 11: boAt forms jt venture with Dixon Tech to manufacture wireless audio products in India (HinduBusinessLine, 2022) - this source is a similar annoucement as above, and lacks WP:ORGIND because it is substantially based on quotes from boAt CEO Vivek Gambhir, and Saurabh Gupta, CFO, Dixon Technologies.
- 12: Ashneer Grover, Aman Gupta fuel Shark Tank meme explosion (Economic Times, 2022) - this is about Boat cofounder Gupta appearing on Shark Tank and creating memes, and WP:INHERITORG indicates that his personal popularity does not transfer notability to the company.

Per WP:N, even if an article meets WP:GNG, it can still be excluded per WP:NOT, and per WP:NCORP, the apparent lack of WP:MULTSOURCES that meet the WP:SIRS guideline support delete due to WP:PROMO at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The keep votes is a collection of vague WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:PERABOVE votes that IMO the closer should give less weight as they do not attempt to provide on any concrete evidence on which sources are suitable for NCORP. GR86, Contributor008, Dudhhr, that an article has numerous sources doesn't automatically make WP:GNG or WP:NCORP met. I concur with Beccaynr's analysis and Akevsharma's decline on the draft. A series of routine announcements on expansions, transactions investments, and routine reports of financial results are insufficient to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. IMO the Quartz source goes into decent detail for WP:CORPDEPTH to be met (and is independent, secondary, and RS), but the rest are not. A WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions or routine coverage while announcing the founders or more routine announcements on transactions and investments, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Therefore, could the keep voters explain which two or three sources pass WP:NCORP? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company has not been mentioned in any reliable news outlets, using vague information and details collated from unreliable links WP:NOTOPINION may/will further harm the company. The information present in the page is unencyclopedic. WP:NOTEVERYTHING The Ajan (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You copy pasted the comment on wrong page. It is not at all linking to this page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excellent source analysis shows there is no choices. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 19:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought to vote week keep then during writing this comment, I realised it should be keep. Ken It has negative comments too from in-house journalists and includes popular chain like "Vijay Sales, and Chroma" who denied to sell the boat products ( No anonymous name). The Same goes with Quartz, It's a myth that if quotes taken from the company's spokesperson then that is not an independent source and all the in-depth comments from the journalist become invalid. Well, IDC Report 1, IDC Report2 is a global independent report which is sharing that boat is ranking in top brands from 7-8 Quarters, here is the another Globalpremienews source. If you want to read full report you need to contact them, the email id listed on the same page. Not finding Redseer Report doesn't mean, it is not cited. There are plenty of sources referring to the same report. Plenty of materials hosted on website are not searchable. Infact the redseer website search is not functional to find Pdf reports. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These refs you linked are routine reports and info on shipments and market shares obviously fall into of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, being independent is insufficient, how is it also SIGCOV? The same is for a piece on a brand trading. It's a myth that if quotes taken from the company's spokesperson then that is not an independent source and all the in-depth comments from the journalist become invalid- even if we generously assume that is one source counting towards WP:NCORP, multiple is needed. VickKiang (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of materials hosted on website are not searchable- a vague WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES argument, similar to your assertions of of Plenty of materials and plenty of sources without specifying how NCORP is met- an example IMO of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. the current sources you provided are inadequate. The Global Premier News piece also fails WP:CORPDEPTH, being a routine announcement with a questionably promotional tone (Consumers can also experience the brand’s extensive portfolio on its website, and covers market shares and growth, trivial per WP:CORPDEPTH. Besides, nowhere does the site indicate no editorial policies or the authors being subject matter experts, thus, WP:NEWSORG is not met, nor is it WP:RS. I find your arguments to be unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if IDC should be counted or not, after your comment. But Those are Industry report Summaries not Financial reports of a particular company. Truly, IDC Links are not significant here. However, we should refer to the whole report. I have written plenty to share that there are lot of media channels, which is referring redseer reports, which indicate it exists. So, if we are not finding it, it doesn't mean it is not there. Could you please also share your views on Ken? After understanding this, I will update my views. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the Redseer report, which you said might be a full version but I could only find this as well. It gives an overview on social media stats, market growth, and sales value details, along with routine information on products. But none of these count towards SIGCOV. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts is trivial. Moreover, the NCORP has a secondary requirement, but that might not always be the case for corporate annual or financial reports per WP:NCORP. I have written plenty to share that there are lot of media channels- there might be a better, Redseer report, but notability requires demonstrable evidence, not just that sources may exist without providing evidence, which seems to me be echoing WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Further, the Ken ref also provides some info on its strategy, but mostly give routine information on profits, monthly run rates, and funds, insufficiently SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads (Avenged Sevenfold song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Previous redirect by User:AngusWOOF contested by User:BoxxyBoy, but other than unreliable databases, routine videos, trivial mentions, there is just a one-paragraph listicle review that might not be SIGCOV and a routine announcement on availability (also non-SIGCOV). My WP:BEFORE search found no more sources contributing to notability. VickKiang (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Of the 13 references, 6 are non-rs, 2 are the band site so are WP:SPS sources, 1 is an apple listing, ref 12 doesn't mention it. The last three refs are 6, a interview with band and is primary, 7, Loudwire is a routine annoucement, 8 Kerrang is a straight-up PR piece. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 04:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. Couldn't find any additional coverage, what's on page is clearly no good as stated above. QuietHere (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. The song has some minor references in fan publications and basic release announcements, but an encyclopedia is not the place for fan trivia. The song has received no reliable or significant coverage outside its album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. Minimal coverage to warrant standalone article. And no, BoxxyBoy, being released as a single does NOT automatically make a song notable. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. The barrage of poorly-written-articles-about-barely-notable-songs-that-scrape-the-bottom-of-the-rock-charts from this user is becoming very tiring to deal with. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written? Thanks. Not like I have improved articles that have been barely passable for years. Why don't you write an article for "Crossroads" and see if you can do better. How about it? BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With many of your previous similar articles nominated for deletion, IMO VersaceSpace's summary is not unreasonable. Why don't you write an article for "Crossroads" and see if you can do better. How about it?- instead of commenting on a contributor could you comment on how the article passes WP:GNG or WP:NSONG? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine if this article is deleted, but how about VersaceSpace learns to not insult my work?

Here is a list of articles I have written. Insult it if you'd like :) The Sick, the Dying... and the Dead!, Soldier On!, Nightstalkers, Dystopia, The Threat Is Real, Post American World, Fatal Illusion, Lying in State, Wake Up Dead, Good Mourning/Black Friday, Set The World Afire, Mechanix, Tornado of Souls, Chapter Four, Second Heartbeat, I Won't See You Tonight, Burn It Down, Dear God. BoxxyBoy (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BoxxyBoy: I have no interest in doing any of that. I said the articles were poorly written because they were. It's not an insult, it's criticism. Being able to take criticism is an important part of editing here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly written"... Like I said, if you have a problem with what I have written, then "fix" it. Poorly written is a point of of view.

Adding Fiction to the list as well. (I forgot it).

Anyways, I believe everyone is in agreeance that this article can be turned into a re-direct? BoxxyBoy (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion- the sources, such as Discogs, YouTube, and Rate Your Music, fail WP:RS per WP:A/S. Next time please cite sources that are listed reliable on WP:A/S instead. VickKiang (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. If you're trying to figure out if the song is notable, you can do so in draft, and dig out more sources, which is why I moved it there, but nope, didn't happen. Release announcements and promotions can be done at the album article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of playable characters in the WWF/E video games[edit]

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

Big ol' heap of WP:GAMETRIVIA, a list of characters appearing in video games based upon WWE/WWF wrestling franchises. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMETRIVIA, clearly not important content. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the nom suggests, this is one giant chunk of WP:GAMECRUFT made into its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 11:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a way to save this information? I know someone like me would find this sort of information important although it may not meet the current WP guidelines.GR86 (📱) 13:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could possibly create something like this on Fandom (or jsut copy it to Fandom while making sure to provide attribution) but I'm not entirely sure. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone in this nom so far. While we do sometimes have lists of characters in movies, that's usually because they are notable but not enough to have their own articles. However this is basically just a list of every wrestler that has participated in WWF/E and was in the games. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously biased because of the time spent, but keep. I see this as no different to any of the ones in Category:Lists_of_video_game_characters, with the exception that there's an article for each character. The trivia sub-section could probably be removed since it's not too important (although one or two of the stats might be). But there's literally 500 different individuals who appeared in these video games, and I think this is the best way to display that. With 30+ years of games, I think it's notable enough. I'd honestly rather have this than a roster page on each game's article (which some have, and some don't, and it's inconsistent). Xanarki (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a trivia subsection is a violation of WP:NOTTRIVIA. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These playable characters are based upon real people, they're not fictional characters with creation, development, reception. Imagine having a list of every playable association football (soccer) player that has appeared in FIFA or American football players appearing in Madden. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god I can see the massive amounts of cruft in those articles already... ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand the association. I just figured, in my personal opinion, since the WWF/E games aren't actually sports titles + there's a consistency of the games being associated to one singular company (WWE), that an organized list wouldn't be farfetched. The wrestlers also has defined personalities and backgrounds (thus why they're listed with ring names), as opposed to (most) sports players who are only known for their stats. Pretty much everyone besides me seems to disagree on these points though, so I'll stop banging the drum on it. Xanarki (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"since the WWF/E games aren't actually sports titles" What do you mean? I'm fairly sure Wrestling is considered a sport and therefore these would be sports titles. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a traditional sense, professional wrestling isn't a sport. It's scripted programming with physical scenes, not much different from an action movie or an action-based soap opera. There's many sources that places wrestling video games as a subgenre of the fighting genre instead of the sports genre. If there was an Olympics mat-based 1-on-1 wrestling video game (does that exist...? must be extremely slow-paced if it does), then that would be more suitable under the sports genre. But since the WWF/E games are different, they are more closely associated to the fighting genre. That's simply the perspective I took, and is the basis as to why I think the page has similar qualities to other fighting games' lists. Xanarki (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I didn't actually know that. Thanks for informing me. Man professional wrestling must be boring to watch if you know what's gonna happen. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to a gaming and/or wrestling wiki. This is not the level of detail that belongs on Wikipedia but many wikis would kill for this kind of data already formatted. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki-ing refers to Wikis owned by Wikimedia —VersaceSpace 🌃 20:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, does not need a separate article just to point out these small insignificant facts that are related to the game itself. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki per Axem Titanium. This is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia as we are not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. But maybe someone can find it a valid home. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenix hair sciences[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of importance. Brochure, native advertising article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current sources are: press release, routine promotional piece, interview, promo routine announcement, another routine coverage, and interview-like press release with "offerings", "spotlight", and "client talks". These are obviously non-SIGCOV and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A WP:BEFORE search found low-quality routine announcements, interviews, and mentions, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but none of these satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH with numerous being non-independent interviews or press releases in dubiously RS sources. VickKiang (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I nominated this for deletion and it was deleted then recreated. On the outside looking in we have a COI editor deletion may need to be salted. Unbroken Chain (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Promotional article about a non-notable company.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editor has been blocked as UPE. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional article. Contributor008 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the topic does not pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death Tunnel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article consists of a single line plot only description of a 17 year old minor independent horror film that is not of any notability. Nominating for deletion under WP:NOTPLOT Binarywraith (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The state of the article is not how notability is decided. For films it should pass WP:NFILM, which states that 2 reviews by independent, reliable critics are needed. This article has links to 2 reviews from sources that are considered reliable for Wikipedia...the New York Times, and DVD Talk. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the DVD Talk review there are also full reviews at Horror News here and at Dread Central here which are both reliable sources for horror films, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three reviews from The New York Times, DVD Talk, and Dread Central are all reliable, independent, secondary sources that constitute of significant coverage. I personally disagree that Horrornews.net is straight cut RS, it has no editorial policies, but given there is existing conesnsus at WikiProject Horror it would qualify as a reliable source. Therefore, four refs count towards WP:GNG. On WP:NFILM IMO only the critic at The New York Times is nationally well known, I don't think the rest qualifies, so WP:NFILM criteria 1 is failed, others also don't apply here. Nevertheless, this seems to be a GNG pass. VickKiang (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Foster[edit]

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

No sources for this one and I can't find anything out there to indicate notability. An actor that has appeared in mostly minor roles and is related to someone. Not enough to indicate WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article, in my opinion. Not yet, anyway. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTRESS. She was a leading stage actress in regional theaters, and had some major roles in some world premieres by well known writers. She also had multiple principal roles in British television dramas. I've added several reviews and will be adding more references as I further expand the article. There is quite a lot of coverage in offline references and in PROQUEST.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm if you say so. All the sources you added are from the same publication and do not look like like significant coverage. Just reviews of mostly regional plays. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to The Stage archives which is UK's major publication for theatre, television, and film coverage; comparable to Variety in the United States through PROQUEST. Many of the reviews have in-depth critiques of her performances, and not all of them are regional, such as her performance in the Royal National Theatre's The Threepenny Opera. I would also consider any performance with the Royal Shakespeare Company and The Young Vic significant given their international reputations. I am not done adding sources, and have not yet begun looking through the archives of The Times, The Guardian, etc. I would imagine other sources will appear. For the moment I am combing through the lengthy number of articles in The Stage, but will move on to other databases later. Also, there are some books and reviews I have added from other sources already, so not everything I have added is from the same publication. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for adding sources. Clearly the early consensus agrees with you. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The additions to the article since nomination make it clearly pass WP:NACTRESS. (Good job, 4meter4).OsFish (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.GR86 (📱) 13:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to 4meter4's excellent work, there is a lot on Wikipedia Library Ebsco search, including JSTOR 44657256, which has several pages on a five-hander performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream (1991); Times review of her in the lead in The Lady from the Sea at the Gate (Jeremy Kington, Times, Feb. 5, 1987); 3 paragraphs of coverage in the Sunday Times (Geordie Greig. Minding the family business; Edinburgh Festival. Sunday Times Aug. 26, 1990); and lots more. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). ✗plicit 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dance 2007 (British series)[edit]

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

Zero SIGCOV, and aside from external links, no references. A clear GNG fail InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985 – 2016). Virtually all compilation albums have nothing going for them apart from a chart position on a specialist compilation albums chart, and this one is no exception. There's little you can say about a collection of previously released hits, and it's unlikely this was reviewed anywhere. Richard3120 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) (link changed per MOS:DATERANGE) per above. QuietHere (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985 – 2016) Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). ✗plicit 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dance 2008[edit]

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

Just barely passes A9 of CSD, but does not pass GNG. Zero SIGCOV; all is mentioned in passing and the album returns no results in Google news. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). Fails WP:NALBUM like most compilations, and there is unlikely to be any reviews or coverage. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). ✗plicit 00:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dance 2002[edit]

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

Just barely passes A9 of CSD, but does not pass GNG. Zero SIGCOV; all is mentioned in passing and the album returns no results in Google news. Would additionally advise looking into the deletion of all the individual and non-notable Now Dance album articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). Fails WP:NALBUM like most compilations, and there is unlikely to be any reviews or coverage. Richard3120 (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) WP:PILEON Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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