Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 26	November 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macarthur Disability Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, no significant coverage. The coverage provided includes local newspapers, as per WP:AUD, wider coverage is required. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a look, also couldn't find any significant coverage. There is some non-significant coverage from The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), but I don't think that's a reliable source anyway, per the article about it --Tristario (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 27 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 22:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone (charity)[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. Article relies on primary sources except for the obituary article on the organisation's founder. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some coverage of the charity here, here, here, and here. It may be enough to be notable, not sure if it passes WP:AUD though --Tristario (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG is met based on the Scotsman and Press and Journal articles identified by Tristario. Both of these are functionally national-level coverage in Scotland. I also found UK national coverage in the Telegraph here (a few paragraphs and prominent photo coverage). Thparkth (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the comments above from Thparkth and the sourcing I'm now satisfied that it meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD --Tristario (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Ofenzyva[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find significant coverage in either English or Ukrainian name. Most of the sources provided are its own website. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:N, little to nothing online, first three results are mirrors. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 23:37, 27 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!} 23:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Imdad Hussain Pirzada[edit]

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources. Notability is not inherited. SalamAlayka (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 27 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!} 21:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kish[edit]

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

Lacks sources about him, so WP:BIO isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Visual arts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find a few mentions and one paragraph (in NYT Magazine, cited in the article) that is about his gallery. Nothing comes up in Ebsco nor in searches of NYT or Washington Post. There's a few sentences in a book about fashion in New York. I also see a few interior design books in which his gallery is listed among many others; basically commercial listings of a business. That's all. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 30 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 speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seija Simola[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable outside of competing at Eurovision. Saw some coverage of that but nothing beyond that. hu:Seija Simola doesn't have much more. Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1978. QuietHere (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. QuietHere (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. QuietHere: Did you, by any chance, mistake her identity when you looked for sources in other languages? She's Finnish, not Hungarian, and the Finnish article has more sources and content. There's more than what's being references there, too, for example this Yle programme which to a large degree is about Simola, back when she was still alive. I've made a small addition to the article; someone who speaks better Finnish than I do should be able to do more. /Julle (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Dunno how I messed that up, but thanks for catching it. This is easily withdrawn. QuietHere (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It happens! /Julle (talk) 01:35, 28 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. BD2412 T 20:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying saucer (pet equipment)[edit]

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

Currently, the article has no sources because I deleted the two that were there because they were both blogs. A Google search for "flying saucer pet equipment" yield nothing but blogs and e-commerce sites. Mucube (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean it's a thing, they have sales listings on ebay and stuff. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur - I see nothing but ads for these; no RS. Lamona (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : seems like pretty blatant PROMO to me. MurrayGreshler (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and the fact there are not really any reliable sources discussing this at all. The author has also been blocked for disruptive editing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a notable but I found zero RS. I did a deep dive and could not come up with any. If someone finds RS an article can be written. Bruxton (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm satisfied with the provided sources, particularly those concerning Schrade's further political activities. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schrade[edit]

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

Looks like a case of WP:BIO1E, coverage of the subject is exclusively in the context of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. A WP:BLAR was previously contested, so I'm bringing this to AfD for further discussion. My view is that redirect to Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy is appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While that event absolutely impacted the rest of the subject's life, he also received consistent significant coverage across the decades since on his work in relation to that event. Far more than enough coverage to showcase notability. Here's just some examples:

Meyerson, Harold (June 7, 2018). "The Legacy of Paul Schrade". The American Prospect. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
Szczesny, Joseph (June 5, 2018). "UAW Overlooks Schrade's Role in Union, US History". The Detroit Bureau. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
Contreras, Russell (June 4, 2018). "Wounded RFK aide from shooting is still pushing RFK legacy". The Monitor. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
Deutsch, Linda (June 5, 2011). "Friend devotes life to RFK's legacy, slaying". Courier-Post. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
Nagourney, Adam (September 4, 2010). "Intended as Tribute, Criticized as Extravagance". The New York Times. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
Pearson, Ryan (November 19, 2006). "Murder of Bobby Kennedy changed all for reporter, campaign worker, friend". Dayton Daily News. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
Banks, Sandy (December 3, 2006). "New film 'Bobby' forgets five others shot with RFK". The Morning Call. Retrieved November 27, 2022.

There's much more to be found, obviously. This all is only from the past 20 years. Silver seren^C 21:41, 27 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Conway Sisters[edit]

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

fails GNG, no significant coverage, they had a number seven hit in Ireland 17 years ago, two further top 20's, and spent a total of eight weeks in the chart. The one article I've found, on the Irish Independent, is just their dad saying Simon Cowell is going to push them All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they charted, which is what we require for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is required for notability is that they pass GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to The X Factor (British series 2)#Finalists. As with the other/various acts whose notability is significantly connected to that topic. (Namely: 4Tune, Addictiv Ladies, Chenai Zinyuku, Nicholas Dorsett and Phillip Magee.) Outright deletion (under PROD or following this AfD) doesn't seem the correct course. In particular as the subject verifiably meets one (and possibly more) of the WP:NBAND criteria. (I would separately note that, while the nominator refers to finding only one mention in the Independent News & Media stable (the national Irish Independent), a quick search returns significantly more than that (a high percentage of which appear to cover the subject as a primary topic). And I also note cover in other national newspapers, such as the Irish Examiner. The only reason I'm not advocating an outright keep is because of how much of this coverage relates to the group's connection to the "X-Factor"...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple charting hits prior to that tv show. Clears pass of NMUSIC. WP:N does not require a pass of both SNG and GNG ( which is passed anyway). Following is some of the coverage I found. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some local Sligo coverage [1] confirming top ten for "What Do You Do?".

Belfast Telegraph [2]

More Sligo coverage [3]

McQauile, Jenny (13 September 2005), "Corr, it's The Conways - SISTERS TIPPED TO ROCK CHARTS", The Daily Mirror

"Conway girls' pop boss split - Showbiz special", The Sun, 6 May 2005

Quigly, Maeve (11 December 2005), "Ousted sisters sing X-mentor Cowell's praises - AXE FELL TO PROTECT CONWAYS", The Daily Mirror

"Westluck for sisters - Exclusive", The Sun, 11 October 2005

Keep as per Duffbeerforme who has demonstrated significant coverage, as per WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 17:20, 29 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 Lake Washington School District#Middle schools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiakin Middle School[edit]

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

NN middle school. Coverage is all routine and local in nature, as would be expected to exist for all primary schools. No indication this school meets WP:NORG. MB 18:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Washington. MB 18:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local coverage isn't up to snuff for notoriety standards for inclusion. A great many other non-primary schools have similar levels of local, incidental coverage and, just in general, have little encyclopedic value. Gnomatique (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Lake Washington School District#Middle schools probably wouldn't hurt, but I agree that this school (like almost all middle schools) isn't notable: the only available sourcing is the sort of routine press coverage that doesn't contribute to notability under WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:NSCHOOL/the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Lake Washington School District#Middle schools per EW, ATD, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 12:03, 28 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 Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Superstar[edit]

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

Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . Sricsi (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Not enough independent coverage about the song. So it fails WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pure/Honey[edit]

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

Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . Sricsi (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Not enough independent coverage about the song. So it fails WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historic South[edit]

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

This article does not have any sources and a Google search does not find any results related to this. I333cat (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources confirm it's confined to this area, mentions of it from South Carolina to a half dozen other status in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed and seemingly invented tourism region definition (counties aren't awkwardly excluded because that just never makes sense), and a term so vague as to be useless. Nate • (chatter) 22:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has zero sources. On the state's own web site, the page about "Historic South" has obscure HTML in lieu of understandable content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding that RSs uses this term. This is possibly an OR situation. An article can be written if this becomes a term discussed by RS. Bruxton (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Timothy Newton[edit]

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

Not yet notable by WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Placed fourth in Popstars (Netherlands) in 2010, with no significant career moves since. I can only find routine local coverage online, in his regional paper BN DeStem. Storchy (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Storchy (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's one article that is mostly an interview.[4] Could be redirected to Popstars (Dutch TV series), after deleting, per WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of redirecting for WP:ATD rather than nominate for deletion, but I can't find the middle name Timothy in RS. Storchy (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NP. It's why I changed the wording to could redirect. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Easthope[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not given automatic notability freebies just because their writing exists, and have to show external validation of the impact of their work (notable literary awards, third-party evaluation of their work by literary critics, etc.) -- but this just states that she exists, and is referenced entirely to primary sources (a piece of her own bylined writing about something other than herself, and staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations) rather than any evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about her work. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Book reviews for When the Dust Settles include: The Sunday Times, Times Literary Supplement, The Week, The Guardian 2, Irish Times, New Statesman, Telegraph, Irish Examiner. Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is also quoted as a "disaster expert" e.g. Brexit delayed pandemic plans says disaster expert (BBC, March 2022), How to be ready for a disaster: an interview with Professor Lucy Easthope (Inside Housing UK, June 2022), Disaster Planner Lucy Easthope on The Ryan Tubridy Show (RTE, March 2022), and there is biographical coverage with interview in the Independent.ie: The disaster plan: Meet the expert who advises on dealing with crises - from fires to wars, terror attacks and the pandemic (April 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted in sources" does not help to establish passage of GNG — notability is not established by sources in which the person is speaking or writing about other things, it's established by sources in which the person is the subject of coverage and analysis being spoken or written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When she is quoted as an expert, the designation of "expert" (or e.g. "the UK's foremost disaster relief adviser") is commentary from the source finding her opinion noteworthy, and could support her notability in combination with other sources per WP:BASIC; and for this subject, WP:NPROF#7 is also potentially supported by interviews in conventional media as an academic expert. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see why the deletion was reasonable, as there being only 3 sources which is all relied on. I would’ve added more but at the time looking for sources would’ve been hard. I found one more book review: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SikiWtideI (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at minimum per WP:BASIC - I also found a review of The Recovery Myth in the Australian Journal of Emergency Management (April 2021) and an announcement of her joining the advisory panel at the Crisis Response Journal, and a 2021 BBC interview describing her as "the UK's foremost disaster relief adviser, Professor Lucy Easthope." Per WP:NEXIST, the article can be developed with available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the numerous book reviews would meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Nomination appears to have failed to perform a proper WP:BEFORE, and initiated a WP:BITEy discussion on a newly created article merely because it was newly-created and had not yet been filled out with all available sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has now been substantially improved and certainly meets sourcing requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much in GS but passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Scotland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NOR, a core policy. With a few exceptions, the sources for the items on this list do not describe the items as "cultural icons of scotland", which leaves us with a mostly random list of famous things and people from Scotland. The previous AfD from 2014 made arguments that would be deemed inadmissible today. Sandstein 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not fail WP:NOR. References in page heavily allude to the cultural significance of the various items. Sources need not describe them as "cultural icons". Items for which sources do not indicate cultural signicance should be deleted but are not reasons to delete the whole article.

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The naming of something as a "cultural icon" is a subjective judgement, and Wikipedia should not assert opinions as fact. A list such as this might be sustainable with much tighter sourcing, but in my view, the sources used should not only describe the item in question as an "icon", but also tell us by whom it is considered iconic (and, ideally, why). For example, I think the source provided in this list for Oor Wullie is just about acceptable. However, I was unable to find similar sources to support the inclusion of haggis or sporran, so I fear that stricter sourcing requirements would leave the list very unbalanced. It seems that very few reliable sources have made an effort to pin down exactly what a "Scottish cultural icon" is, or what qualifies, and in the absence of such sources, this article will always be OR. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cultural icon is a highly subjective status, and the sourcing is absurdly and ludicrously terrible. The one for Balmoral Castle is an article titled "Royal aide is shot at Balmoral". For Sean Connery, it's "Sir Sean Connery signs book deal". Nothing about him being an icon, just a routine announcement. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any proper WP:LISTCRITERIA and I'm not sure any could be constructed; a collocation like "cultural icon" being applied to something (or someone, for that matter) is no basis for a list. TompaDompa (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not incredibly familiar with list policy, to be transparent, but WP:SALAT recommends against excessively broad lists; either way, such a list as this seems ridiculous on the face of it. Would we have an article called "list of cultural icons of France" or "list of cultural icons of Germany"? Or a list of words in Indonesian? I struggle to think so. CPORfan (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Weng Wong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find any sources on Google discussing this guy. None of the references on the page talk about him beyond a passing mention. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Singapore. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 27 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!} 03:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music Brokers[edit]

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

Record label doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Music Brokers is the biggest indie label in Latin America with offices in many countries, including United States. They launched the famous project Bossa N Stones and had in it has released album from Diego Torres to Vampire Weekend. The article is a stub and needs a lot of work, but has relevance.--Ocatarinetabelachitchix (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC) sock strike- MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment right now it's a strong delete, but the organization may have not trivial and not online only coverage. --Morpho achilles (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore we follow WP:NCORP guidelines for establishing notability and that means we need references/sources that meet these guidelines rather than opinions on whether they're the "biggiest indie label" or whether they'd a famous product. I'm unable to locate any references that meet (or come close to) NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMOTION; does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. The English Wikipedia article contains no secondary sources, except for MusicBrainz, which in turn cites this Wikipedia article, which strongly suggests WP:CITOGENESIS. Although the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia entries for Music Brokers do cite secondary sources, these are primarily articles about specific albums, with Music Brokers mentioned only in passing. Similarly, although ProQuest turns up a few dozen hits for the Argentinian "Music Brokers" (not to be confused with the Canadian label called "The Music Brokers"), these are mainly mentions in passing. The one focused piece on the actual company I have found so far is the very recent (28 November 2022) 25th anniversary press release, which is a primary source and therefore doesn't count toward notability per WP:NCORP. For the purposes of promoting this music label/broker and its associated albums, it seems like there are many other websites and wikis available that would be a better fit than English Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 30 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!} 05:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Arts in Applied Psychology[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notable. This article is about the title of a bachelor of arts degree in applied psychology. The references are to sites that offer the degree programme, which does not indicate significant coverage. On Google Scholar, it appears that there is no significant academic coverage on the specific degree of Bachelor of Arts in Applied Psychology. Should be deleted or alternatively merged into applied psychology or Bachelor's degree#Psychology. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Psychology. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a very small bit to Applied psychology#History, probably just the sentence right under the heading Curriculum structure. The phrase "Bachelor of Arts in Applied Psychology" is already present in Bachelor's degree#Psychology, but targeting the Bachelor of Arts in Applied Psychology article gives more context. Joyous! | Talk 02:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing of encyclopedic value in the article that can be merged to other articles. The "Curriculum structure" section is WP:OR, an indiscriminate and arbitrary list. You cannot create an article based on "Institutions with XYZ degree programs". Wikipedia is not a directory for the infinite combinations of niche courses offered by different universities. — hako9 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Striking my recommendation above; hako9's argument has changed my mind. Joyous! | Talk 04:24, 29 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. There's clearly no consensus to delete this, and as one participant pointed out, the nominator's proposal of "merge and delete" is not something we do anyway. Reminder that you don't need to send an article to AfD to propose a merge, you can do that on article talk. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Brennan[edit]

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

Merge with Tom Waits, then delete -- non-notable except as wife and cohort of Tom Waits. MurrayGreshler (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Ireland, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she is credited as a songwriter for multiple songs by Waits. She does avoid the media, but there are details about her life in the page. I am not well-versed in music, so perhaps someone more versed in music can address how she meets WP:COMPOSER, I suspect this is one option: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. She was honored for songwriting by Song Lyrics of Literary Excellence Awards, though I am not sure if that is adequate to establish notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that the nominator read WP:Merge and delete. I see no reason here why, if it is decided to merge this, the redirect shouldn't be kept rather than have people jump through hoops to maintain the necessary attribution for our copyright licence. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:COMPOSER - sources support her independent notability, e.g. Tom Waits, Wife Kathleen Brennan and John Prine to Be Honored With Songwriting Award (AP/Billboard), Full of Time: The Magical Stories of Tom Waits, Kathleen Brennan, and Robert Wilson (Flood Magazine), How Tom Waits' wife revolutionised his musical style (Far Out Magazine), Broadway World. Also, for e.g. Franks Wild Years: Frank’s Wild Years (Rolling Stone), Behind the Song: Tom Waits, “Frank’s Wild Years” (American Songwriter), (NYT), she is credited as a co-writer, similar to Blood Money and Alice, e.g. NPR, Rolling Stone, and generally described as an influence e.g. Paste, Quietus, NPR. Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr -- I respect your opinion but she is irretrievably linked to Waits and I still believe she should be a redirect to his page with any salient info unique to her page manually added to Waits' article. MurrayGreshler (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The doctrine of coverture does not apply to notability - the support for WP:BASIC and WP:COMPOSER notability in independent and reliable sources over time are not discounted simply because she is married to Waits. While a relationship alone does not confer notability, we can keep a standalone article for Brennan because significant coverage exists, e.g. multiple reviews of multiple works per WP:CREATIVE, WP:BASIC coverage including WP:SECONDARY commentary and context over time, and WP:COMPOSER notability noted above for her co-writing of multiple notable works. Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverture? Really? I am not a chauvinist who believes a woman is her husband's chattel. I am merely suggesting that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, Brennan is not sufficiently independently notable of her husband to merit her own article. Let's try to assume good faith. MurrayGreshler (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reference to coverture was intended as a rhetorical response to the phrase "irretrievably linked" and the merger suggestion, particularly after sources were identified to support her notability according to multiple guidelines. This article can be further developed (sources in my comment are examples, not complete results from a search, and I have not checked the Wikipedia Library, and in GBooks, e.g. there are 21 hits for her name in Lowside of the Road: A Life of Tom Waits). There is sufficent information about her and her notable career for there to be WP:NOMERGE for this subject. Beccaynr (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets two of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER - 1) Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (and she has that for more than one, so it's pretty strong) and 4) Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. For how collaboration is treated, the case of Lerner and Loewe is a model. Lerner did not create any works on his own but is considered notable even though all of the (non obit) articles are about the two of them. This case is different because one collaborator is also the performer and therefore more visible, but in general songwriters and lyricists are not as visible as performers. It is a shame that she does not get more credit on her own. We've spend decades now recovering the "wives" of science of the past centuries; it seems to be time to turn to current times and the arts. Lamona (talk) 17:05, 30 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!} 07:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Umanath Singh[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage on this person to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable per WP:N and WP:GNG. MurrayGreshler (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 07:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete: As per nom and above. User4edits (talk) 16:24, 29 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!} 07:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Grand Old Nag[edit]

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

Unreferenced _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 10:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 10:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage of it in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. If there is any notable content about it it can be put in Bob Clampett--Tristario (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found some coverage of it here, but still doesn't look like enough to establish notability Tristario (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:17, 27 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 Michael Jai White. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian White (actress)[edit]

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

She only seems to have had minor roles. Currently the page appears to be basing her notability on being married to another actor. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that until June 2022 the article looked like this, and was then gutted by a short-lived, now blocked, user with edit summary "Unsourced anecdote." Yes it was largely unsourced but it had been created in 2007, before any mention of the celebrity husband, though unsourced from the start. She apparently stars in Take Back (film), where she's named on the poster - although her article, as of June 22, said " In Spring 2021, Gillian will be showcased in her first lead role in the action thriller Take Back ". So it was a poor and unsourced article but not as minimal as the current version, and looks as if it should have scope to be expanded to show her notability. Not my area of interest (she's on my watch list after I disambiguated various Gillian Whites in 2021). PamD 10:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This in The Guardian might help. PamD 10:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Here's an interview. PamD 10:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most roles are minor, The Oval, Young and Restless and Days of our Lives appear at least recurring roles. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nine episodes on Days of Our Lives and 12 on The Oval aren't all that much, and three on The Young and the Restless do not constitute a "recurring" role. Take Back is an obscure film, with only 10 IMDb votes, a really paltry number for a modern film. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If not keeping, Redirect to Michael Jai White where she is mentioned. PamD 06:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Michael_Jai_White#Personal_life...to be more precise? Anyway I've added a sentence to Michael Jai's bio explaining that they appeared in Take Back together, with Gillian as the female lead. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite obvious the person doesn't meet nactor. Minor roles are not helpful. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Jai White Jamiebuba (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A "neutral" deletion rationale (?) and no consensus present. Feel free to take your own editorial action on this article but this discussion is not going anywhere as Deletion doesn't seem to be anyone's preference here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Subdivision[edit]

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

NeutralThe following article was made a revert with 0 discussion I made this a discussion so people can contest against this and any editors can add more sources to establish notability I won't be playing any sides in this discussion. NotOrrio (talk) 05:36, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~List of CSX Transportation lines as before~~. Please read WP:BLAR and stop wasting editors' time. This is not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my redirect target to Wilmington, Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad, which was created by Mackensen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't help but wonder how you even found this article. Were you looking at my contributions? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Florence Division. That is another more specific list-type article. Rather than just redirecting, Florence Division should be reformatted into a table with some basic info about each line. (note: per WP:BLAR, objecting and discussing is quite acceptable). MB 19:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that article should be deleted, because Wikipedia is not a train timetable. We absolutely are not governed by how CSX internally organizes its rail lines. There are hundreds of these pointless stubs, and almost all merit redirection to another article. Let me ask you this: what here is even worth merging? Reference 1 is a wiki and cannot be considered reliable, while reference 2 is a primary source, and literally a timetable. WP:NOTTIMETABLE exists for a reason. This subdivision belongs as an entry on the overall list, nothing more, which is why I redirected it there. The reason articles like this have languished as stubs with no reliable secondary sourcing is that they are not notable, no matter how much some foamers think they are.

And I am well within my rights to question how the OP found my redirect and undid it, considering they've shown zero interest in anything besides Australian buses and train stations until now, and have previously directed personal attacks towards me. I find it hard to believe this wasn't retaliatory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure what to make of the underlying drama here, but I would consider a nearly 100-mile-long railway line to be presumptively notable. The currently article is inadequate, yes, though maybe not so inadequate as all that. WP:NOTTIMETABLE doesn't really apply here, where an employee timetable is used for mileage and connections to other pieces of physical infrastructure. The most obvious areas of expansion would be the companies that originally built it, and when, and perhaps a survey of former passenger service over the line. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the corporate history; the line was probably built by the Wilmington, Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad and the Carolina Central Railroad, successor to the former. This was all part of the Seaboard by 1900 or so. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible there's a notable rail line here. But that does not mean that we have to say this particular subdivision is notable, unless it is the same stretch of track. This article, and a bunch more, were all mass created by a railfan with no regard to if they made sense as articles; they were simply mass produced with no secondary sources. We should not necessarily be organizing our articles by subdivisions, which are simply pieces of track that someone in Jacksonville decided to organize in a certain way. I'm of the belief many if not most subdivisions should end up like the Fitzgerald Subdivision, merged into an article on the company that built the line. Some may be standalone notable, but not this one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Went back to check on this AFD seems that Trainsandotherthings got quite mad because I checked his contributions to clarify this happened because I saw that he AFd two articles on wikiproject buses I believed he had added afds to some other articles, I wanted to make sure the articles were deleted with discussion and that the article would be deleted in a way which is easy to restore if notability can be achieved, so I checked his contributions he redirected an article with 0 discussion (this one). Since he doesnt want me to check his contributions I decided to respect his wishes by doing so. Keep in mind this user has admitted to checking contributions, has also accused me of bad faith for contesting against an AFD and has consistently shown that he is unwilling to change his point of view in AFD discussions and forces others opon his views. Overall this AFD isn't a waste atleast 5 editors have made contributions to this page and only 1 person is in favour of making the mage a redirect. NotOrrio (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we have:

An admission that you specifically targeted me
Accusations of bad faith ("forces others opon his views")
Admitting that this AfD was started because you're mad I, along with many others, voted to redirect your non-notable bus articles

You'll also notice nobody is actually arguing that this article can stand on its own. But sure, I'm just an evil deletionist trying to impose my views on everyone else. Keep pushing that narrative, buddy. I checked your contributions because you had a history of trying to disrupt and circumvent AfD, and lo and behold, I caught you doing exactly that. Not sure how I'm the bad guy here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm tempted to do a Procedural close here as the nominator is "Neutral" and hasn't presented a deletion rationale. AFDs are not started to argue about redirects and reverts, those discussions should occur on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be a procedural close. The nom has not presented a rationale for not redirecting other than it was done without prior discussion. There is nothing to discuss if no rationale for or against the action is presented. SpinningSpark 22:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with CSX Transportation. This is part of something notable; not notable on its own. Rublamb (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merging an individual subdivision, one of the several hundred CSX owns, to the CSX article, is not appropriate (think merging the article on a tiny Indian village to India, it would be pointless). This belongs at the list of CSX lines, where it is already included, and at the article for the company which originally built the line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And the opinion to Delete was unanimous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture[edit]

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

Yeah, this exists. And fails WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:IPC and WP:NLIST. Most prose content is unreferenced and likely original research, and then we have the usual list of works that mention EMP. Or, lightning, because this is what the lead opens with... Anyway, looking at the history (first version, tagged shortly with notability) it is clear this was an ORish essay that over time started accumulated WP:TRIVIA-style list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic pulse in fiction, from 2007. Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture was created in 2010, and X5dna who created it said on the talk page I created this article because of a clear, important and longstanding need for such an article. The main benefit of this article will be to keep fictional references to electromagnetic pulse from getting in to the main scientific article on Electromagnetic pulse. There needs to be a clear separation between the scientific and technical aspects of electromagnetic pulse and the very large amounts of fictional and popular culture references to electromagnetic pulse. The separation of the real and fictional aspects of this important phenomenon has been very difficult in Wikipedia in recent times. TompaDompa (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what content is salvageable into Electromagnetic pulse#In popular culture. There's virtually nothing to this article aside from a list which would fail WP:NLIST, but the popular culture section in the EMP article could do with expanding and there's some content from this page that could be added there. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OliveYouBean I don't think anything is salvagabeable - there are refs, but effectively primary, with OR due to conclusion drawns. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. I'm not really bothered whether or not this continues to exist, but I agree with Piotrus that this is an unencyclopaedic crufty list. It does not belong in the Electromagnetic pulse article. The usual reason for creating these popular culture pages is to get the crufty list out of the main article. I'm not sure of the exact history of this article (too many name changes and merges) but a list was removed in this edit. I don't think AFD has the ability to override editorial content decisions by insisting on merging back in. While lists like this don't really belong, deleting them generally doesn't work because they are quickly recreated piecemeal. Hence the compromise of cutting them out in to a standalone page. @OliveYouBean: The first ref in the Electromagnetic pulse#In popular culture section discusses common misconceptions and errors about EMP. While it refers to scenes in numerous films and books, it manages to do so without actually naming any of them. That is a proper encyclopaedic discussion. If you think the section needs expanding, then expand it from that source. SpinningSpark 18:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note the hidden comment in that section Please do not post specific media examples here. Save these for the main article on *Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture*, as linked to above. If you add them here they will be deleted. SpinningSpark 19:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing but a list of trivial "this was in this thing!" examples. The actual reliable sources that are being used as citations in the opening paragraph appear to be about the actual scientific concept of EMPs, not about its depiction in popular culture. I concur with the nominator that there really is no content that is salvageable, thus nothing that would be appropriate to merge to the main article on EMPs. I have no issues with expanding the current "In Popular Culture" section of that article with properly sourced prose text, but it should not just be a list of examples, which is all this list is comprised of. Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, we don't need a list of x thing in yz media, if you don't have much scholarly discussion around it. Nothing for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. Note that merging would affect two articles, Electromagnetic pulse and Nuclear electromagnetic pulse. This issue was a major concern prior to 2010, and was resolved by the creation of the article in question in 2010. I don't really care whether the article under discussion is deleted or not, as long as fiction and pseudoscience can be kept completely out of serious articles on science and technology (without greatly increasing the workload on those of us who are maintaining the articles on science and technology). X5dna (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wasn't very clear on this in the above statement, but the reason for the creation of the original Electromagnetic pulse in fiction and popular culture article in 2010 was to un-merge the fiction about Electromagnetic pulse from the scientific articles about the subject. The original Wikipedia (scientific) article on EMP was further split in 2013 into separate articles on Electromagnetic pulse (in general) and Nuclear electromagnetic pulse (which is a specific and unusual type of EMP). After the all the work done since 2010, merging the fiction back into these non-fiction articles is difficult to even imagine. X5dna (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:GNG, WP:OR, and WP:NLIST. This unsourced list of examples doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone as an article of its own. Jontesta (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and NLIST, but not OR. Who in the real world goes around listing fictional EM pulses? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend Apparently, Wikipedians do :) Assuming we are part of a real world... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well Good Reads thinks there is mileage in it. And Ryan Law has a list on his website. SpinningSpark 15:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Law is a "content marketer" who likes to make lists like this, and Goodreads isn't much better. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't putting those forward as GNG sources, just answering your question! SpinningSpark 19:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll say the same thing I said at WP:Articles for deletion/Tonfa in popular culture: Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. That same essay makes another point which is relevant here: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content; wanting to keep the main article "clean" is not a valid reason for having an article like this one. If editors add examples to the main Electromagnetic pulse/Nuclear electromagnetic pulse article based on primary sources (or more likely no sources whatsoever), the proper course of action is to remove those examples per MOS:POPCULT.
I would have no objection to recreating this as a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic—as was done for WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction—in the event that sources that would allow us to do that while abiding by MOS:POPCULT emerge. None of the current content would be of any use for that, however, so there's no point in retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merge. This would be a fascinating entry if it was actually an encyclopedic and REFERENCED discussion, but this is not that. Joyous! | Talk 18:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. While it is a potentially doable concept for an article, in its current form it needs to be totally rewritten. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:11, 29 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. The page creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, if anyone else wants to work on this article, I can move it into your User space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neta Bomani[edit]

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

A Google News search turns up only 17 hits, none of which seem to confer notability. LinkedIn notwithstanding. A loose necktie (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This article has a vaguely promotional tone, but I can't find any RS we can use. She's mentioned in passing in relation to other subjects. Oaktree b (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources, also seems to be promotional Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was a resident at Eyebeam, which has a $20,000 award attached,^[1] has shown at competitive performance venue the Kitchen in New York and has been mentioned in Artnet. I'm also continuing to work on this. How many of you have long experience in editing articles about the contemporary art world, particularly of BIPOC artists? Or even created one article on a BIPOC artist? It would behoove our site if you'd take a few moments to reflect on your possible biases.--NerdyThursdays (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biases are not a good thing, but we need coverage in reliable sources that discuss the subject at length. We can't conduct research ourselves, so this is what we have. The article is somewhat promotional; I'm more concerned that she hasn't garnered critical attention. How she identifies is secondary to coverage, otherwise she's an artist trying to make a mark on the landscape, not unlike many hundreds of others of all varieties of humandkind.Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dafoe, Taylor (27 October 2021). "How Can Nonprofits Better Serve Artists? With a New $1.5 Million Program, Eyebeam Is Turning Over the Purse Strings to Its Fellows". Artnet.

Delete No coverage found, Artnet is about the best one. LinkedIn isn't a valid source and the others are from the establishment where she "works" in the art sense of the word. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fyi Oaktree b, you already made a bolded !vote above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've crossed out the first one. Ooops. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy so NerdyThursdays can continue developing the article. Based on my research, it appears WP:TOOSOON to support WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability, but Bomani continues to exhibit work, e.g. [6], [7], which indicates a likelihood of secondary support, such as reviews and other coverage, continuing to develop in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider draftifying or userfication. I also don't recommend accusing participants of having a bias, it's not a successful strategy of persuading others to your point of view.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be WP:TOOSOON as I'm not seeing any in-depth reliable source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON, Delete from mainspace but draftify. The artist is on her way to have her bio in Wikipedia, just not yet. Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 15:55, 30 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. While there are plenty of media mentions of the Telly Awards from those that have won the award, there is a dearth of independent, secondary, reliable sources about the awards themselves, not enough in depth organizational coverage to establish notability for the award that warrant its own article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telly Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The Telly Awards are a non-notable award. Previously deleted, a new article has reappeared with dreadful sourcing that does nothing to establish notability. The first source is the Telly Awards' own about page which is hardly an independent source. The second source is a press release even though it has a byline. If you don't believe me, the third source is the same press release posted by "Shot News" on their web site. If you still don't believe me, this same press release is also here complete with the usual press release "About" at the bottom. The fourth source is Al Jazeera congratulating themselves in winning an award that is ~~given away~~sold like candy. I can find many more puff-pieces where a Telly Award is "won" but there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources that I found that establishes this award as notable. Whpq (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award appears to have been around since 1979 and there are a ton of mentions of it, but all are promotional or PR pieces. Even in news sources, they only list nominees and winners. CGTN won an award recently and they covered it, but we don't consider them a RS. What's given for sourcing in the article is useless as above. This seems to be a long-established award, but I can't find much of anything we can use for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are even mentions in scholarly journals; one was about a series of videos documenting the first 10 yrs of development milestones in children in a medical journal. The documentary was widely used in the field, so I'd have to imagine the Telly Awards carry some sort of notability, but I just can't find anything about them. Oaktree b (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD from way back in 2008 uses pretty much the same argument (but has very weird sourcing that we don't see in AfD). The point being that people like to brag about winning one, and there are lots of mentions of wins. That discussion was to keep the article, but they also point out that there are few if any (what we now call) RS. Damn, this is a tough one, feels like it should be notable but I can't find anything to support that. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like it should be notable because you can find lots of press releases from organisaitons touting their Telly Awards. The thing is, it's just a paid for award. To be clear, this is going to be my opinion backed up with unreliable sources because reliable sources haven't bothered to cover this scam. If we have reliable sources covering this scam, then we would be able to establish notability. Anyhow, I think this reddit post does a good job summing up what the Telly Awards is about. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Advertising. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete I created the page. The Telly Awards are definitely notable, as you can see by googling it - hundreds to thousands of organizations put out a press release in the news once they win a Telly Award, including many governmental organizations and non-profits. I did see a previous Telly Award wiki page was deleted in 2008 but it did indeed have weird syntax and references. I struggled when I put it up to find RS and it remains a mystery why so hard to find. An Indian Telly Awards page was created in 2009 for Hindi-language television, and it is a spinoff of the much older Telly Awards. I am working on adding more RS now and just pinged their Executive Director on LinkedIn to learn if there are any quality news or journal articles that are citeable. Hope you can bear with me.Schmiebel (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I've added a half dozen citations from newspapers and/or magazines, External link to Telly Award podcasts, new subsection on 44th Tellys, expanded subsection on 43rd Tellys, and quote from Executive Director. Still hope to hear from her to see if I can get additional RS.Schmiebel (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  None of what is added establishes notability. Provideocoaltion is just a warmed over press release from Telly. Creativepool is dubious as a reliable source and this is an interview. Note that creative pool also run their own award. Advance Media is a press release congratulating themselves. I guess it is there to confirm the 3% gold claim but a press release does nothing for notability. Post magazine is just publishing a different excerpt from the same press release as provideocolation mentioned earlier. Shootonline is just a copy of the Telly press release. Nothing that has been added represents coverage in a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Oops. Missed Oz Magazine in the above analysis. That one just copied material from this Telly press release. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has also previously been deleted as Telly Award which I have now added to the previous AFDs box. I might be more convinced for an IAR case (which was the 2008 rationale) if winning one of these awards meant some kind of achievement. But it doesn't, you just have to look at the winners lists to see that. Even the gold trophy is given out indiscriminately to literally thousands of recipients each year. Basically, you just have to submit an entry and pay the fee to win something. SpinningSpark 14:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3% of applicants win gold according to this PR. https://www.advancemediany.com/the-telly-awards-2022/

7%-10% win silver awards, and 18%-25% win bronze according to the Telly Awards fact sheet https://www.tellyawards.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/06/38th_Telly_Fact_Sheet.pdf

I am still trying to reach the Managing Director to get more RS.Schmiebel (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So adding those together, according to their own figures, up to 38% of entries get one of the top awards. That's still pretty indiscriminate considering this says they typically get 12,000 entries (38% of 12,000 is >4,500). I also see in your link the online community views and rates videos to help decide People's Telly Award Winners. So even more get something to take away. SpinningSpark 17:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete Nearly all of the sources about this (and I went through 20 pages of Google results) are of people bragging about having won an award, including presumably dignified folks like Bloomberg and PBS. Even G-Scholar is a bunch of scholars bragging about their awards. I don't think we should delete this even though the award is essentially pay-to-win. Like the fad diets, this may be something we don't take seriously but it definitely is a THING. I added a section on the entry mechanism and the fees, although I could only link that to the Telly site. I looked for articles critical of the award, but couldn't find any. It's clear to me that the category structure is designed to create the largest number of winners by breaking down the categories into nearly 100 different sections. I think it's fine if people want to give themselves awards, but the article should be honest about the promotional nature of the award itself. There is too much promotional material about the winners in the sections by year which needs to be cleared out. A short list of top winners would suffice. I don't think that we would consider winning one of these awards to lend to notability. The award may be notable but the winners are not necessarily so. Lamona (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I trimmed out the quasi-promotional list of award winners as you suggested. It has dawned on me, after also looking through dozens of pages searching for RS on Telly Awards that google is just too full of press releases by the high volume of awardees. This is not to say that there are no RS on the Telly Awards. In fact, I found several RS by searching on the current managing director instead of searching on "Telly Awards". I'm still hoping to identify the founders/owners/past managing directors so that I can do focused searches on them instead of just "Telly Awards".Schmiebel (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases counts zero towards establishing notability. 20 pages of zero equals zero. -- Whpq (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was hyperbole Whpq! LOL! There are other sources. Here's a promising one from Screen Magazine. It is extensive and could provide new info for the article. I'll look into that. Lamona (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the exact same press release as the one used by Shootonline noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see it now on the Telly Award web site. I still can't get over that reputable folks are vaunting this award yet no one has written about it as a "thing". I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't an NDA for entering. Few awards get given a critical treatment, but most of what I'm seeing is winners talking. If this is a non-notable award, why does it get major companies entering? That's what I can't figure out. I'll keep digging. Lamona (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all know that Press Releases aren't RS. Straw man arguments are not helpful Whpq. Given the volume of PR, I believe people need to be able to read up on what the Telly Awards are. This is why I created the page to start with - I couldn't easily find a good article describing the Tellys because the few articles are buried in press releases which are greater in number by 3 orders of magnitude. Rather than delete the page, I'd welcome adding to the page criticism of the award mechanism having a pay to win component, if we can locate RS to support that assertion. Meanwhile I will keep working to find and add RS as above.Schmiebel (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What strawman argument I am I using? The lack of any coverage in reliable sources is pretty much the standard argument at AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. An assortment of press releases and routine announcements does not make WP:GNG met. E.g., this reference is promotionally written, linking to the award's URL along with the lines To enter your work in the 44th Annual Telly Awards, The Telly Awards continues to curate a diverse roster of well-established in conjunction with frequent quotes usage. This is another routine announcement- quoting and listing winners with little critical commentary is not SIGCOV. Per WP:GNG, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. This is the case here. Additionally, the other refs not from the awards organisation, i.e., 1, 2, 3, all promotionally written press releases. Moreover, while it is not the intention, some of the keep votes have been unconvincingly going into WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, relying on that multiple subpar press releases demonstrate notability (?). Unfortunately, I did not find SIGCOV-meeting sources per WP:BEFORE, though if the keep voters could provide some high-quality WP:SIGCOV meeting sources instead of the usual press releases please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed my !vote to delete but I must say that there is something very odd about this - that no one talks about it except in the most glowing terms even though tens of thousands have participated. I'm stumped. Lamona (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kentarō Yano. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Janai mon![edit]

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

No evidence of notability and the article just has one citation. Xexerss (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Kentarō Yano as there aren't really any good sources I can find. Due to the age of the manga, I suspect all the good sources would be in print magazines of the time, and they aren't available online to search. Just one of the many biases against older Japanese titles on the enwiki. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated above per Link20XX. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kentarō Yano; I agree that it fails WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK but redirecting to the author is a common WP:ATD that should be preferred over deletion. Link20XX (talk) 23:51, 28 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis in Samoa[edit]

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

The article lacks depth sufficient to stand alone. Similar articles have sufficient depth, coverage, and reach to stand alone (therefore are notable and meaningful) for example Cannabis in Hawaii or Cannabis_in_South_Africa Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've expanded the article with referenced material on proposals for reform.--IdiotSavant (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concept has more than enough encyclopedic value to stand on its own (see: adjacent Oceania countries with placements in the "Cannabis by Country" category), it just needs some TLC. Gnomatique (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as appears notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:15, 28 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. As an aside, looking at this article, it looks like the AFD tag was removed and replaced at least 5 or 6 times. Since so much of the article content appears to be false, if this article gets recreated yet again, I recommend salting the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Meena Phagi[edit]

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

A textbook example of WP:REFBOMB. Previously deleted under A7, now the references are almost exclusively about Anushka Sen (?) for some reason. Most of the refs don't discuss Vishal Meena at all, e.g., reference 6's title states Vishal Meena replaced in 'Apna Time Bhi Aayega in the reflist but the actual ref's headline is Anushka Sen replaced in ‘Apna Time Bhi Aayega’: While producers cite unprofessionalism, actress claims she quit on health grounds (accidental mistake?). this ref discusses Vishal Aditya Singh instead of Vishal Meena. But there is not a single reference discussing Vishal Meena Phagi, the actual subject of the article, significantly, I could not find any per a WP:BEFORE and the extremely minor roles fail WP:NACTOR. VickKiang (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unfortunately, I AfDed this via Twinkle instead of Page Curation, so didn't check the time this page was created, as a result I should wait 15 minutes to tag but I only waited 13 minutes. Apologies for this oversight, thanks.
VickKiang (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking into the history of the article User_talk:Meenavishalmeena183 to see how it was developed. I do not see this entry as meeting the requirements for inclusion as to quality, independence COI, or process Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of BLP does not seem notable enough for inclusion on WP. There also seems to be a significant conflict of interest between the primary editor & the subject. Unburnable (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography on a non-notable person. I can't find even a smidgen of coverage. Even if this is somehow kept, the fraudulent references which actually relate to Anushka Sen need to be removed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this comment, most of the references are completely unrelated WP:REFBOMB. VickKiang (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanicruft. SteelPanMan (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable and doesn't meet any notability guidelines that I'm aware of. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article apparently refers not to a general concept but to a specific product and the consensus here is to Delete it. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless asset monitoring system[edit]

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

Wireless asset monitoring systems or software might reside in the realm of speciality ~~inventory control~~ products which report on telemetry wirelessly; the article is not describing anything noteworthy or encyclopedic. Even "widget" carries more weight in terms of notability and that phrase redirects to an article called Placeholder name. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and also lacks any WP:V & WP:INDEPENDENT available sources in the article Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I'm not 100% convinced this fails GNG, but if an article should exist, this isn't it. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not seeing an awful lot wrong with this. This article should probably be at the title Asset monitoring or Asset monitoring system but these systems are frequently (maybe nearly always nowadays) wireless and the WAM acronym exists in the wild so the title is not so bad. "Asset monitoring system" is clearly notable;

I don't agree that this is a TNT case. It is a reasonable basis for further expansion. Yes, it currently has no sources in the article, but nothing it says is outright wrong and WP:AFD is not cleanup and WP:NEXIST says sources don't have to be in the article to keep it. SpinningSpark 14:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that these references are describing the same thing as the article. 1 and 3 are just applications of passive RFID tags; 2 is RFID tags + measuring time between scans at different places to calculate speed. (I can't see the last because Google's doing the "you've seen too many pages of this book" thing.) Wireless asset monitoring system, however, appears to be talking about a specific system involving industrial sensors and active transmission.

If this page does exist, it should be about the concept generally and not about this one product. I can't imagine a good article incorporating any of what's there currently. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to condition monitoring, as the subject is already better covered there. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on review, the closest comparison to the article would be Condition monitoring; but there is another (non-related) technology using the same term Inventory tagging that is ubiquitous (but that is not what this article is about.

The article is about a speciality product - with virtually no coverage.

https://www.bapihvac.com/product/wam-local-food-safety-software/ https://www.kele.com/network-and-wireless/ba/rcv418-wam-series.aspx

https://store.ncd.io/product/wireless-asset-monitor-sensor/ There was a bit of confusion on my part, and in the afd notes, as to exactly what this product is. It is being confused with RFID tagging. WAM can be an acronym to describe anything especially in the marketing of products. Yes, as you found it is already covered. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. AfD is not cleanup, but this is beyond cleanup. The article title plausibly refers to a broad range of topics, but the content is specifically about wireless telemetry which is not usually what "asset monitoring" means at all. What's more the content seems to be describing a very specific application of wireless telemetry and is unverifiable, outdated, and manifestly misleading. There is nothing worth keeping here and no useful redirect IMHO. Blow it up. Thparkth (talk) 14:25, 30 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. ✗plicit 23:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Turman[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:N and WP:BEFORE returned nothing. The article has been sourceless, pretty much, since its creation. The only external link is WP:IMDB. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per norm. Only source present is an IMBd link which is not an WP:RS. A search on GNEWS provides me with 2 hits which are only passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chargers–Raiders rivalry. Those advocating Delete have the numbers here but those favoring a Redirect put in a good ATD argument in the last 2 minutes of the discussion (metaphorically speaking). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Los Angeles Chargers–Las Vegas Raiders game[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT, which states that regular season games should have a lasting impact on the sport and garner news coverage outside the week of their occurrence. Neither criteria is met here, and the game is covered in detail on the 2021 season pages of both the Raiders and Chargers; redirecting to one of those is not an option because neither is a better target than the other. That said, I wouldn't object to a redirect if there's another option I didn't think of. Hatman31 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and California. Hatman31 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill regular season game, even one with playoff implications, does not get a standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proper place to cover this is in the 2021 team/season articles for the Chargers and Raiders. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created the article, but in hindsight I agree that its not a particularly notable game. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Esolo5002: Much of what you wrote could be incorporated into the team/season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Delete, but could merged with either/both teams articles for their seasons, perhaps? Gnomatique (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special about this game. Lots of late games every season have playoff implications. So what? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the game was a statistical anomaly (as both teams could achieve a mutually beneficial result so they both reached the playoffs), but even that has no sustained coverage. The match itself is routine, and the statistical anomaly is mentioned in appropriate articles anyway. Not enough coverage for a separate article on this match. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. In addition, this is not a particularly good redirect since the teams played 2 games during the 2021 season, making the title ambiguous, and this game was actually played in 2022, not 2021, making the title even less relevant. Rlendog (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per above. Unique circumstances in which a mutually beneficial tie (which almost happened) would get them into the playoff. But there is no lasting impact or sustained coverage of this game. Frank Anchor 14:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect to 2021 Los Angeles Chargers season#Week 18: at Las Vegas Raiders, as a WP:ATD, where much of the important content of the game and a brief summary of the background are already included. The corresponding section on the Raiders' season page would work too, but I like the summary in the Chargers page better. Frank Anchor 15:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Game was very notable due to the circumstances; is considered one of the greatest football games ever played because of its tumultuous proceedings, and has a lasting legacy. Very notable to many, plus there are similar cases described in see also. Article is well sourced and in great quality. If we can't keep it, alternatively redirect to Chargers-Raiders rivalry. That is a plausible merge target; and even if consensus says delete, redirecting to a viable target is preferred if possible, and this is such a case. @Hatman31: Would that be a good redirect target for you? DrewieStewie (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry page would be a much better target for a redirect than either of the season pages. Hatman31 (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the Raiders' season page or to Chargers-Raiders rivalry. Game's coverage could be significant in the future for its own page, but it surely isn't right now. MushroomMan674 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Geller[edit]

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

Totaly non-notable junior county commissioner. COI issues. Hipocrite (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hipocrite (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another resume article for a minor county official just there to get on TV/ rather than actually be a civil servant. Nate • (chatter) 00:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, falls short of WP:NPOL, and every other criteria of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County-level officeholders are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL — to be notable on that basis, a county commissioner would have to demonstrate a credible reason (e.g. nationalizing coverage) why he could legitimately claim to be one of the most individually important county commissioners in the entire United States, and simply existing as a local officeholder with the purely run of the mill local coverage that's simply expected to exist for local officeholders in their own local media is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 29 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!} 00:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Wang[edit]

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

Per WP:NOPROMO and lack of independent establishment of notability based on WP:RS Amigao (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and United Arab Emirates. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more crypto fluff. Press releases, flowery pieces and the like for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOPROMO and WP:GNG. Concur with @Oaktree b. MurrayGreshler (talk) 21:27, 28 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.

[1] Dafoe, Taylor (27 October 2021). "How Can Nonprofits Better Serve Artists? With a New $1.5 Million Program, Eyebeam Is Turning Over the Purse Strings to Its Fellows". Artnet.

[1]