Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 23	September 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Lootere[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "AfD it" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reason not to PROD this. I see no SIGCOV, no evidence that this meets NFLIM, and nothing comes up in a BEFORE search. House Blaster^talk 16:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a review of TOI has been inserted as reference. Pinakpani (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are for this article do not provide enough information to establish notability. I've included a table with the reliability for the sources used in this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
India Times	~ WP:RSP notes that this publisher is pro India in it's coverage	Article has no concerage or author	Article is a synopsis of the movie	✘ No
bollywoodhungama.com	? Unable to determine if coverage would be independent, website is more of a database	? Article shows only box office data with notes about there not being data	Article is a synopsis of the movie	✘ No
Box Office India	? Unable to determine if coverage would be independent, website is more of a database	Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com	Information is just about box office performance	✘ No
cinestaan	? Unable to establish if this source is independent	? Article has no concerage only synopsis	Article is a synopsis of the movie	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. No reliable reviews. @Pinakpani: The source you are talking about has no review. DareshMohan (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no reviews and reliable independent sources. Assirian cat (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Idow Hassan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All sources are trivial or databases. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following a brief search for more sources to establish notability, sources added. (User talk:Hildreth gazzard (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous relist seems to have caused this discussion to get lost due to a technical glitch. Procedurally relisting to get back in the system
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added sources are enough to float it off the rocks. Ingratis (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, please consider new additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's very borderline, but I reckon he passes GNG. This article constitutes significant coverage, and while this is very close, I reckon it provides just enough coverage to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jean Dureza[edit]

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

This is a wholly promotional biography created a few weeks ago. The refs provided are not independent Reliable sources, so WP:GNG appears to be failed, as do WP:BIO and WP:PROF.

The whole tone and content of the article is so blatantly promotional that it looks like a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

Regardless of whether other sources can be found to satisfy WP:BIO/WP:NPROF and regardless of who User:Speak0u7 actually is, there is nothing here worth keeping, so WP:TNT is in order. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree per nom that the article reads like an autobiography, probably fails WP:NPOV and WP:BIO. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 22:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, and Wikipedia is not about you. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. It's as simple as that, there's no way the article's subject comes even close to meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This includes WP:ANYBIO as well as the notability guidelines covered by the padded out description of "educator, content creator, author, speaker, and researcher" which would be WP:NACADEMIC for educator and researcher and WP:AUTHOR for author and content creator, and speaker. I did check each of these criteria and the article's subject meets none of them. This article resembles the promotional blurb you'd see on the back of a book about it's author more than it does a Wikipedia article, which is what happens when there's no independent sources to rely on. - Aoidh (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Good afternoon, the author is about to publish their company for the sole purpose of encouraging young people to achieve their dreams. As part of introducing the author's legitimacy, some of the works were cited in order to validate the claims.

However, if you decided that the author's information and the way it was illustrated fails to meet the standard, then you may delete it from the page. `Thus, if you can suggest a better way to keep the page in the wiki in order to encourage the author to add more suitable information needed for future readers, that would be a great help.

please take note that this is 1st creation of the author, and have edited more than 10 pieces of content in order to publish its first write-ups. Speak0u7 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC) — Speak0u7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue isn't the content, it's the notability of the article's subject. The article cannot be rewritten in a way that makes it notable, notability is demonstrated via coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. Not every person needs or should have a Wikipedia article about them, especially if the article is being created just to give an air of legitimacy to the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Speak0u7. As the above editor states, the problem is that the subject of the article, while undoubtedly a worthy citizen, does not currently meet any of the guidelines for inclusion in an international, general-interest encyclopedia. The relevant guidelines are WP:PROF for academics and WP:AUTHOR for authors. Once the subject's second book has been published, if multiple book reviews are published in reliable mainstream sources, then there might be grounds for revisiting the question. Alternatively when the company has been up and running for several years, if it attracts significant press attention, there might then be grounds for considering an article on the company. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to promote stuff, subjects of the articles need be shown to be notable, explained. We need reliable sources to prove the article belongs here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Andre🚐 17:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't for selling your stuff. No reliable sources found and I don't see any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOSOON at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as possible WP:NOTYOU and probably WP:NBIO (or WP:BASIC perhaps). CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the author clearly has some form of COI, likely autobiographical. Speak0u7 has reverted most of my page triage work and has made repeated attempts to re-add the same external links, as well as removing maintenance tags from the article. All signs that they are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Also, agree with notability concerns stated above. Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources found for the record label, brief mentions in articles about Anderson, one of the founders. Largely a list of acts signed to the label. Nothing found about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No new sources found since the last AfD, which still wasn't much at that time to go on either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the third time I have commented on an AfD for this label; I suppose that, if this ends in a keep or no-con, I will have to keep doing it again and again until I die, and a goodly long time afterwards, too. As before, the label has a sufficient roster and history to comport with the sense of an "important indie" per WP:MUSIC, and there are several sources, to boot. As a side note, I don't terribly object to the founder's article being merged into this one, but that's a matter for a different venue. Chubbles (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Low amount of WP:SIGCOV but possibly enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 22:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is WP:SIGCOV from Billboard (a top authority on music coverage) along with several other reliable secondary sources. This is a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 02:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - nothing's changed since the last nomination, so see my bloviatious statement at the 3rd go-round. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kugelblitz (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation contains a German World War II weapon (Kugelblitz), a type of black hole (Kugelblitz (astrophysics)), and the German word for ball lightning. The latter fails WP:FORRED, leaving a WP:2DABS case where there may or may not be a primary topic. The fate of this AfD is linked to an RM at Talk:Kugelblitz#Requested_move_24_September_2022. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term seems to be a common enough synonym for ball lightning in English literature [1] that it meets the FORRED case-by-case clause - Topics for which a non-English title is in common use even if that is not the common English, the official or the original name --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep for now; if there is found to definitely be a primary topic, a hatnote woul dbe preferable. Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added Operation Kugelblitz MrKeefeJohn (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Doxtader[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF, Google search did not bring up articles, has 120 citations in Scopus (note that WP:NPROF says to use Scopus or Web of Science and not Google SCholar), has not won a major award, is not a member of an elected society, research does not show major impact in the field, is not a distinguished professor or holds a named chair. Article reads more like a CV than an article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. He appears to have only one authored book, with only one published review, which would normally not be enough for WP:AUTHOR. The many reviews of his many edited volumes, and the award from the Rhetorical Society of America for the book, push me over to the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, the main reason I accepted this at AfC was his being the editor of Philosophy & Rhetoric, which I thought was probably a significant enough journal for an NPROF crit. 8 pass. Any thoughts on that? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not a big fan of #C8 (I am not convinced that journal editorship is a good way of distinguishing noted scholars from less-noted ones) but that does appear to be a pass of #C8, also. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The journal is a legit journal but it is a very small journal with an impact factor of ~0.25. I think the editor rule applies to larger journals where being an editor takes a lot of time and is prestigious. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think impact factors are meaningful for anything but the most specific head-to-head comparisons of journals in the same exact subject. Even then, because they only count works cited within a narrow time window after publication, they only work well in fields where research is fast-moving and driven by journal publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah your right @David Eppstein, I did a quick search of other journals and Rhetoric Society Quarterly and Rhetoric Review both had higher impact factors. I think another important factor is if the journal is part of a larger society or group. Like for example American Psychologist is attached to the APA and Psychological Science is attached to APS so being an editor for those journals is a really big deal. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep agree with the assessments above, the award seems to be the kicker. Not much mainstream coverage of rhetoric these days. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My take on the journal differs from the above. To start, I have no idea where that 0.25 figure comes from. The linked website is weird, I looked up some other journals and their data were wrong or outdated. It also lists non-existent metrics (like a "Scopus Impact Factor"). The figure that comes closest to the .25 is the 2021 SCImago Journal Rank, but that is a very different metric than the impact factor. According to Scopus, the journal has a 2021 CiteScore of 0.6. The CiteScore is similar to the Clarivate impact factor, except that it is based on 4 years of citation data instead of just 2. For a (relatively) slow moving field like this, that may be more appropriate than the IF and 0.6 is quite respectable for this low citation-density field. Scopus lists 718 (!) journals in the category "Philosophy" and this journal ranks 238, i.e., in the upper third. In all, I find this is a clear pass of ACADEMIC#8. --Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why does a book award confer notability for the author when there is only one documented review of the book? If the book is noteworthy, there are plenty of rhetoric journals that would have covered it and even then, the book would be the subject of the coverage and our article, not the author. czar 23:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR, was unable to find sources for her other than an obituary and a fan blog. IMDB doesn't list any awards and only credits her for some episodes of a few british TV shows. Checked Google, Google News, and the newspaper archive and wasn't able to find anything about her that wasn't just passing comments or about her death. This article was PROD but it was contested so it is now being sent here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ridge is a household name for me, as a female BBC television director from an era when that was rare. There was a lot of coverage of Blake's 7, a very popular and influential show in its time, and now with cult status, where she directed several episodes including two finales ("Terminal" & "Blake") that were hugely controversial, but most of it pre-dates the internet. Some coverage is archived in Google Books but most of it isn't readable; eg 12 hits here some of which look significant: [2]. One of the books cites an article J. Nazzaro (1993). Mary Ridge: The final days of Blake's 7. TV Zone 45: 30–32 which looks like it might be significant coverage. She also worked on Doctor Who, which of course has tonnes of media & academic coverage, but with which I'm less familiar. eg [3] There's a brief (2 paragraph) entry in Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors by Jerry Roberts that focuses on her non-sf work. [4]. ETA There were two books: Blake's 7: The Inside Story, Joe Nazzaro, ‎Sheelagh Wells 1997 and Liberation: The Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to Blake's 7 Alan Stevens, ‎Fiona Moore 2013 which might have content, but they don't seem to be available online. I'll see what else I can dig out. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going offline now, but I'll add, I'm willing to work on this if kept, but I no longer work on articles at AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict clearly knows more about this then me so I'm going to withdraw my nomination so they can get all the referances sorted out. Mary Ridge sounds a lot more important after reading Espresso Addicts comment. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As per Espresso Addicts comment as they have access to resources that are not easily found online and know this area much more than myself. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ja'Mal Green[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Most sources are local publications talking about his candidacy or very brief mentions of him. Lacks extensive, national, noteworthy, in-depth coverage of him as a person required for a Wikipedia page. Only 2 national articles cited and 1 is just about his candidacy. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-GNG, failed mayoral candidate, nothing for notability otherwise. Could be promotional due to the upcoming election. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG requirements. [5], [6], and [7] are all extensive and cover Green in an in-depth manner. Note that GNG is the standard, not whether the person won office.--User:Namiba 19:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of those sources are local, and two (including HuffPo, the only non-local source) are just about his candidacy. Again, he doesn't have the ongoing, personal coverage required for a Wikipedia page. Sorry but I don't see how a couple articles about his mayoral candidacy meets GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should re-read WP:GNG, which sets the standard for biographies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The location of the source is not a factor according to this guideline.--User:Namiba 13:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a handful of coverage in the local media of the city or town where they're running for office — so if that were all it took to hand an unelected candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then NPOL itself would be meaningless as nobody would ever actually be bound by it at all anymore. So the inclusion bar for a non-winning candidate is not just "two or more pieces of run of the mill local media coverage exist" — it isn't passed until the candidate either (a) has some other claim of notability that would have already gotten them into Wikipedia regardless of a candidacy, or (b) can show a reason why their candidacy should be viewed as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly your interpretation, but can you point to a policy which states that? A candidate for mayor of one of the largest cities in the United States who is regularly covered in large-scale mass media is not just a run of the mill candidate, either. Moreover, Green has been covered in The Grio, Teen Vogue, and Banking Dive. Those are hardly routine pieces. If you're unhappy with WP:GNG / WP:POLITICIAN, then seek consensus to change those policies. Don't try to ignore them at AFD.--User:Namiba 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my interpretation", it's the standard consensus that's been upheld in thousands of AFD discussions on unelected political candidates over well more than a decade — even a candidate for president of an entire country doesn't automatically get to keep an article just for being a candidate without having to show preexisting notability for other reasons, let alone a candidate for mayor of a city. And I fail to see how anything in WP:POLITICIAN is in conflict with what I said, for the purposes of claiming that it somehow overrules what I said. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who said he is automatically eligible? I said he passes GNG. Prove that he doesn't meet GNG if you disagree. Stop conflating your interpretation with consensus. The consensus is the policy.--User:Namiba 16:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, every candidate in every election everywhere would always be able to claim that they passed GNG, and were therefore exempted from actually having to be measured against NPOL at all, if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took — which would render NPOL meaningless, because nobody would ever actually be subject to NPOL at all if all they had to to do exempt themselves from it was show some campaign coverage and then claim GNG. So the established consensus is that campaign coverage is not enough to get an unelected candidate over GNG all by itself — candidates only get Wikipedia articles if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy is somehow much more significant than everybody else's candidacies, in such a way that even if they lose, they would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. Not because I "personally interpret" things that way, but because established consensus decided that. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won, but this neither claims that he has preexisting notability for other reasons nor demonstrates a reason why he should warrant special treatment denied most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, largely because of the Teen Vogue article. In that article, the subject is used as a prime example of individuals running for office under the age of 25. As Namiba says above, this is not routine coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing against Teen Vogue but they aren't exactly the New York Times. I fail to see how 1 article from a primarily fashion-based magazine is enough to establish notability. And even if we accept Teen Vogue as an acceptable judge of whose political campaigns are noteworthy, that's just 1 article. How is that enough to establish "significant" coverage under GNG? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Teem Vogue has a good reputation for its political coverage (see this article in Slate or this article in The Atlantic to the reputation of the publication's coverage of politics - especially political activism among its primary readership). As for the second question, I believe once we find (at least) one piece of significant, substantive, coverage of a political candidate, then we can evaluate other coverage (including the volume of local coverage) with the aim of filling out the details from the article with significant coverage. In this case, Namiba suggests there is non routine coverage in the Grio and Banking Dive, publications I am not familiar with, and there is the local Chicago based coverage - both of the subject's campaign and political activism. - Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huff Post + Teen Vogue + extensive, widespread coverage of mayoral candidacies in the US's 3rd city = multiyear, RS SIGCOV = passes WP:BASIC. Despite assertions above, his 2020 candidacy itself was reported as notable: [8]. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG requirements per sources cited above. Nick Number (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has received SIGCOV in sources for events outside of his mayoral run, and therefore he passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, see this, this and this for examples. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will also move the article for the other John Frazee to the primary topic in place of the unnecessary disambiguation page. RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Frazee (artist, born 1949)[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for notability. There are no significant exhibitions, museum collections, or what we would normally find for a notable artist. There is another John Frazee, 19th century artist who is notable, so searching for sources was a bit tricky. All I could find in a BEFORE search on this John Frazee (b.1949) is this review of a show he and his wife had at a pay-to-play rental gallery.[9] The review is SIGCOV, but it's not enough to retain the article unless additional independent coverage in reliable sources can be found. The current sourcing consists of something he wrote for a competition in Omni magazine which I was not able to verify, and a letter to the editor. Bringing it in for the community to weigh in with feedback. Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Florida, and New York. Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find anything about him, and most came across references to the 18th century sculptor by this name. If this is deleted the disambiguation page should be cleaned up - actually, it will no longer be needed. Lamona (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an easy call. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG and there is little elsewhere to suggest notability rising to the level of a Wiki article. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Common name, but I am unable to come up with any reliable coverage for the one born in 1949. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could find no reliable sources to show notability. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not come anywhere near meeting WP:NARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Beauty Industry Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this as three of the four keep voters were UPE spammers: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy. Undisclosed paid-for spam supported by black hat SEO sources. Clearly not a good faith attempt at an encyclopedia article. I would delete this G5 except for the previous AFD. MER-C 08:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. MER-C 08:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most sources appear to be trade publications, nothing for GNG that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, lacks non-routine coverage to meet WP:GNG. Also, MER-C, I'm sorry for remove the AfD tag from the article recently, I didn't realise that there was an active discussion here (somehow I ended up at the old AfD page instead, which is closed). Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Belfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP was deleted in 2020 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (2nd nomination)) as the bio of a non-notable journalist (which at the time, he most definitely was). Since then, he's been convicted of stalking four people including a BBC journalist and sent to prison. This trial was, inevitably, well-covered by the press. The article has - somewhat unsurprisingly - been recreated recently, but of course it is now basically an article about a crime masquerading as a biography. Therefore, this new article fails WP:BLP1E, as he is only notable for a crime he committed. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Belfield didn't meet notability criteria in 2020. We don't create 'biographies' around routine criminal convictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His YouTube channel had over 300,000 subscribers so I believe this constitutes some level of notability outside of the crimes committed Zerbstill (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Woodroar (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can present convincing evidence that he was notable before his arrest. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. A non-notable person becoming a criminal does not make him notable. And his socoal media presence doesn’t either, so YouTube views or subscribers are not by themselves indicative of WP:BLP notability. I vote delete this article again. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate retention of the article as there is a lot of misleading information about this case. The indictment list was twelve but related to eight individuals as there were split timeframes, the jury found four 'doubly' not guilty and only two guilty as charged. The lesser charges were introduced to avoid a mistrial. The case is likely to form somewhat a precedent for the new Online Safety Bill (currently going through the UK Parliament) and in time the "R v Belfield" trial may be seen as a significant stake in the ground for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The page at present does not contain much of the lurid BBC and Nottinghamshire Police chatter and I see as a good reference page. Twcc (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If R vs Belfield does become notable (which at the moment is WP:CRYSTAL), then an article could be created in the future about the case. This would still not make Belfield himself notable per WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N(E) Fails WP:GNG Atighot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to respective Vocaloid platform article. czar 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cul (software) and similar articles[edit]

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

Also nominated:

This is a mass deletion nomination for a first batch of the individual voices for the voice synthesis software Vocaloid. All of these voices fail WP:GNG, according to the sources cited in them, which are generally not independent and/or reliable and/or in-depth. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver (software), where it was suggested that this is a problem of this entire class of articles. Sandstein 14:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Software. Sandstein 14:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Fictional elements. Sparkl^talk 13:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and redirect to their respective Vocaloid platforms. These are functionally analogous to tools in Photoshop. The company has chosen to anthropomorphize them in marketing for sales reasons, but they are no different to picking a different tool in Photoshop or a different instrument in GarageBand. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing for a Redirect solution, you should specify what target they should redirect to. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respective Vocaloid platforms means Vocaloid (software) or Vocaloid 2. I'd support such a merge, as I don't think those, errr, equivalents of a game expansion/software add-ons merit stand alone articles (per WP:GNG), but they are searchable terms that should redirect to a short section in the articles about their relevant, notable main softwares. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, some of these articles referred to Vocaloid 4 so this closure will likely have to be handled article-by-article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what the benefits of merging this content is. Much of it is vapid marketing nonsense or trivia. Sandstein 17:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all and redirect per above. — Jumbo T (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per above. Agree that these is all just one piece of software with several updates / add-ons, and they can be summarized more succinctly. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR and we don't create separate articles for every release. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Mundialito de Clubes squads[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that the squad lists were ever covered in any independent WP:RS. There are announcements at Beachsoccer.com but these wouldn't meet the standard as Beach Soccer Worldwide, the organisation that runs this website, is the organisation behind this tournament also. Squad listings should not have Wikipedia articles unless there is evidence of independent coverage, otherwise it just becomes a free web hosting service for the organisation running the tournament. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Garuda (2022 film). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garuda (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, future film that seems to have halted production with no new updates since 2017 BOVINEBOY2008 13:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFILM. Haueirlan (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The film has been released on May 2022. I have added 3 review to the page - PravinGanechari (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Garuda (2022 film), a film about the same topic. DareshMohan (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Garuda (2022 film) as the film has now been released and has reliable sources reviews added to this article but at present we have two articles on the same topic so a merge is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crocs Challenge Cup 2010[edit]

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

Can't find anything that would allow for a passing of WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:GNG. Google News and ProQuest returned nothing at all. A normal Google search yielded no coverage outside of Beachsoccer.com. Beach Soccer Worldwide published some articles like this one but, since it is the promoter of the tournament, it is a non-independent source and so cannot be used to confer notability. There is no evidence that this tournament was covered in detail in independent WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Andorra, Azerbaijan, and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My research leads to the same conclusions as nom. This was a first edition. Maybe one day this event will take off and a multiyear article could be justified. At the moment, none of that! gidonb (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non beachsoccer.com sources found. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2010/07/26/goede-grasvoetballer-is-nog-geen-goede-strandvoetballer-11923967-a66824 https://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/14479/ax-en-koswal-op-dreef-voor-oranje https://azertag.az/en/xeber/AZERI_BEACH_SOCCER_TEAM_CRASH_ENGLAND_IN_CROCS_CHALLENGE_CUP-594060 https://news.day.az/sport/220704.html https://www.sportsdaily.ru/news/sbornaya-rossii-po-plyazhnomu-futbolu-primet-uchastie-v-turnire-v-gollandii-75120 https://www.championat.com/other/article-3104429-likhachjov-pered-nami-odna-zadacha-pervoe-mesto.html https://www.vzsar.ru/news/2010/07/21/delta_perestaet_byt_bazovym_klubom_sbornoy_rossii.html https://xeber.azeri.net/idman/millimiz-turnire-qelebe-ile-start-verib https://www.gazeta.ru/news/sport/2010/07/19/n_1522514.shtml https://qol.az/news/13803-millimiz-crocs-challenge-cup-turnirinde https://www.azerisport.com/football/20100724080932626.html http://old.plazovakopana.cz/storage/file/bulletiny/Bulletin%20Day%203%20-%20EBSL%202010%20-%20The%20Hague.pdf--Gazozlu (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @giantsnowman Gazozlu (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with a lot of these sources is that the articles are very, very short. This interview is lengthy but only mentions Crocs Challenge Cup in passing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the sources again, the articles mostly are coverage of the Crocs Challenge Cup. Some of them are indeed not very long articles however I can confirm now that they are largely more than just passing mentions. So re-iterating, independent coverage outside of beachsoccer.com has been located so I think we don't need to delete the article anymore. Gazozlu (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree and say that they are all WP:ROUTINE. Even friendly matches get this level of coverage. For example, England's friendly against Ivory Coast earlier this year is a non-notable football match, I'm sure that we would all agree on that. It does, however, still get more than a passing mention in Sky Sports, The Independent and ESPN. What it lacks, however, is any WP:LASTING coverage and this is why it doesn't warrant an article. The coverage listed above by Gazozlu is all minor and routine sports coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article is about the whole tournament, not about an individual match. The news articles are about matches that have taken place as part of the larger tournament and contribute to the over all coverage of that tournament. Except for the NRC article which I can't access the whole article. I'm not convinced that the article about the tournament should be deleted, your initial concern about not being able to find independent coverage outside of Beachsoccer.com has been adressed. Gazozlu (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote "There is no evidence that this tournament was covered in detail in independent WP:RS." This remains valid. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I made a working archive of the NRC article. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It looks like a passing mention of the Crocs Challenge Cup Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, the name "Crocs Challenge Cup" is mentioned fully once but the whole article is about it. Gazozlu (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - I can't find any significant coverage that's independent. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant and independent coverage has already been located above. Gazozlu (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Spiderone's analysis of the sources you linked above, except for the NRC source. However, just one somewhat lengthier source that is independent and almost solely about the tournament does not constitute overall significant coverage of the topic to me, especially when the rest are passing mentions or short, routine "hey, our country did this in this tournament" types. So I still don't think there's justification to retain the article. Uhai (talk · contribs) 07:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. tweaks/rewrites are editorial decisions and can be discussed outside of afd Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Pamplemousse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A rather lengthy search failed to disclose any sources independent of the subject. One is mentioned in the article, but that book is about Paddington and qualifies as a passing mention. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and United Kingdom. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tweak. The series more than meets WP:NBOOK - simply making this an article about the series would solve any concerns around notability while still allowing room for discussion of the character's development. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For my education, please elucidate how this series meets WP:BKCRIT. From my current understanding, it does not. Kleuske (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? All that is needed to meet BKCRIT is two independent non-trivial reviews - I stopped counting at twenty. There's actually enough for many of the individual titles to have their own articles, although treating them as a series makes sense from a development perspective. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as original author) − The idea that a series of 18 novels by one of the world's best-selling and most translated authors (for the Paddington Bear series) is not ipso facto notable seems to me to strain credulity to the point of lunacy, but the nominator may be appeased by my having added to the text quotations from reviews in The Guardian, The Times, The Observer and other British and Irish newspapers and references to the BBC's broadcasts from the Pamplemousse series. (Unsurprisingly, I was planning to do so in any event.) Nikkimaria, happy to tweak as a series rather than a character: your thoughts would be most welcome on the article talk page on this point, or indeed any other. Tim riley talk 15:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced and interesting. More than meets the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a few more secondary sources, if required: Decanter,[10]; BBC, [11] Guardian, [12]; Publishers’ Weekly, [13]. There are more! KJP1 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterstones - references a number of reviews, The Scotsman’s “delightful French frolic of a detective story” being my favourite, [14]. KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources mention Paplemousse. Oaktree b (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again at, e.g., the Decanter article headed "Michael Bond: Top wine quotes from the Monsieur Pamplemousse stories". Tim riley talk 19:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterstones is a sales site. None of these are useable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b - I don’t mean to badger, but I think you are slightly misunderstanding. I attached the Waterstones link because, under Media Reviews, it quotes from seven separate reviews of Pamplemousse, indicating coverage from a range of RS. KJP1 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The article is sourced to such independent secondary sources as The Times (several separate articles), Liverpool Echo, The Guardian, Aberdeen Evening Express, Irish Independent, The Observer and BBC Genome, all of which had significant coverage of the topic. At this point, the nominator should withdraw the AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't find any French sources beyond book listings in amazon or fnac. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Oaktree b, why would you expect or want to find French sources for use in an English Wikipedia article about English novels? Just asking. Aren't The Times, Liverpool Echo, The Guardian, Aberdeen Evening Express, Irish Independent, The Observer and the BBC good enough for you? Tim riley talk 19:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed based on the name he was a French BD character. I've not heard of the character before now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, I see. Perhaps in the circumstances, you may wish to reconsider your vote to delete? Tim riley talk 20:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources listed above, they don't mention Paplemousse. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you can't find "Paplemousse", as you keep calling him, in searching the sources is that he is called Pamplemousse (it is the French word for grapefruit). Every one of The Times, Liverpool Echo, The Guardian, Aberdeen Evening Express, Irish Independent, The Observer and BBC sources in the article mentions Pamplemousse in detail, and he is specifically named (eight times) in the Decanter article in which you said he is not mentioned. Tim riley talk 21:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the improvements made during the AfD so far, which demonstrate the fictional character was notable all along. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly meets notability with numerous references. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Monsieur Pamplemousse series? But that topic can be continued in a WP:RM on talk. As for the article, weak keep although with the caveat that this article would be best served being rewritten from a focus on a fictional character to the focus on the book series. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kieren Keane[edit]

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

No evidence that this football (soccer) player has ever played or coached at a professional level (I removed some stats from the infobox which suggested that he had but they were blatantly fake). No evidence of passing GNG, all I could find online is passing references to an unremarkable semi-pro career and the odd reference to him being a friend of Jay DeMeritt, which obviously doesn't confer notaility -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any strong evidence of notability. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Article looks like a CV, which does not belong on Wikipedia as discussed in WP:NORESUMES, and has been the target of ongoing vandalism. At first I wondered why the article was such a magnet for vandalism – most notably, his name had been changed to "Karen Keane" for 18 months and no one noticed – but if I had to guess, it's actually because he is a well-loved soccer coach to kids. Newspapers.com turns up several mentions, photos, and quotes of him as a youth coach (e.g. this Chicago Tribune article and an article in a local paper mentioning his involvement in local community outreach through Bridges FC). As both the article and the nominator mention, Kieren's greatest claim to fame is as best friend to soccer player Jay DeMerit, and there are many, many newspaper articles discussing their friendship like this one in the Vancouver Sun and this one in The Province – how Kieren convinced Jay to play football in the UK; how they backpacked together; how Jay and Kieren crashed at Kieren's mother's house in London back in the day – but alas, there is very little otherwise about Kieren's own early football career. Otherwise, he was mentioned in USA Today in 2022 as agent to Ricky Hill, who is suing Major League Soccer and other parties accusing them of racial discrimination. In summary, Keane has had an interesting career (and great action shot contributed to Commons), but unfortunately it doesn't quite add up to telling a coherent story about him and his career as a football player, coach, and scout. Weak delete because if at least one article were found focusing more on Keane and making an argument for notability, we might be able to combine all of the pieces to satisfy WP:BASIC *and* write a coherent article. (At the very least, I will add a sentence about Keane on the Southall FC page now.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living Room (AJR album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The sources in the article are a tweet, and George Town Voice, a student newspaper which is thus unreliable in this context. I could not find any more sources about in a WP:BEFORE search. Endwise (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Endwise (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there's at least potential from this list of sources [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] QuietHere (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To go off of the previous comment, this article can easily be amended. Voicebox64 (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After a deeper look at the sources I found, I think there's enough in there for WP:SIGCOV. QuietHere (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by QuietHere. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Click (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The Sputnikmusic review is a user review, which is user-generated content and thus unreliable. The Communicator is a high school newspaper, which is also not considered reliable for album reviews. All that's left, and all that I could find from a WP:BEFORE search, it is a pitiful couple-sentence long review in AllMusic. Endwise (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Endwise (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thoughts on [22][23][24][25] for sources? I admit I'm surprised by the lack of coverage, the album got, and still gets, a lot of attention from independent online critics and music circles so I'm used to hearing about it a lot, but I guess that didn't translate to the mainstream press anywhere near as much. QuietHere (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NALBUM. Charted on the Billboard 200 and is certified gold in the US. The album has several 'hits', including one that's certified platinum in four countries. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VersaceSpace + the sources I listed above. Nominator is right that the present sources are no good, though I wouldn't count out AllMusic so easily even though it's short. "...features more of the New York trio's eclectic, hooky pop" would at least be good for a genre/style section quote. QuietHere (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't understand why this is being considered for deletion. It was the album that boosted AJR into superstardom and also, while this has nothing to do with it, it's one of my personal favorites. Don't you dare delete this page. Voicebox64 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by QuietHere and nom. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arpita Pandey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Even the sources cited do not exceed more than passing mentions. ~~The one that is about her, (Times of India) details her sexlife, which is hardly relevant~~. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: without any award or major roles fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. @Kleuske: the WP:TOI link discusses the character's life not her. Venkat TL (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete she seems to have been in many tv shows, but all I can find are tabloid-type stories, nothing of substance. More in local language sources perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:GNG. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please see this discussion's talk page for further source analysis. Article topics need to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. czar 22:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kenslow[edit]

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

In a routine check through my deleted contributions tab today this article popped back up on the scope. In its original form it was biography which was deleted the first time around on copyright violation grounds. This newer version is a more detailed version that, on paper, appears to address the previous concerns for copyright and adds more content, but fails to demonstrate notability and on a read through appears far more interested in promoting its subject than it does in informing the public in an encyclopedic way of the person it is about. I'm listing here to community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Internet, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the writer of the article. Please understand that this is my first article which I spent a lot of time in. I believe that the subject is definitely qualified, but I'm SO sorry if I sounded more biographic and promotional instead of encyclopedic, but please understand that the subject should be notable enough. (I'm sorry if I'm not the best at grammar either). In your notes, you said "Find sources...news, newspapers, books..." I'm just going to leave a whole list of links below proving to you credible sources to prove his notability, starting with Newsweek of all places. A person is definitely notable there. And he has appeared in several news, radio, podcasts (actual news stations and not independent ones).

1) https://www.newsweek.com/i-have-autism-aspergers-syndrome-1730468

2) https://medium.com/authority-magazine/unstoppable-how-matthew-kenslow-has-redefined-success-while-navigating-society-with-aspergers-45f484cf3369

3) https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/news/2022/08/05/why-one-man-is-using-his-diagnosis-to-help-others-on-the-spectrum-feel-included?cid=id-app15_m-share_s-web_cmp-app_launch_august2020_c-producer_posts_po-organic

4) https://www.wsaz.com/video/2022/09/19/journey-through-parenthood-asperger-syndrome-awareness/?fbclid=IwAR0vRJ5aWw7q3iLLISHjDyZA66XsL9Ag4psXn6A1bpx7xRvqCBZQ1wDgJBA

5) https://e27.co/how-autism-shaped-my-life-and-what-i-want-people-to-know-20220906/

6) https://thetableread.co.uk/aspergers-and-unstoppable-matthew-kenslow-doesnt-let-labels-limit-him/

7) https://chvnradio.com/articles/aspergers-and-unstoppable-how-matthew-kenslow-is-using-gods-gift-to-succeed

8) https://kost1035.iheart.com/featured/ellen-k/content/2020-04-02-order-matthews-book-juggling-the-issues-living-with-asperger-syndrome/

9) https://motherhood-moment.blogspot.com/2022/07/book-nook-juggling-issues-living-with.html

10) https://360wise.com/aspergers-and-unstoppable-matthew-kenslow-doesnt-let-labels-limit-him/

11) https://the-art-of-autism.com/how-i-got-an-award-winning-book-about-autism-published-at-23/

12) https://lifeasrog.com/juggling-the-issues-living-with-aspergers-syndrome/

13) https://jonimartinsauthor.blogspot.com/2022/03/book-review-juggling-issues-by-matthew.html?spref=tw

14) https://issuu.com/vanguardu/docs/synecdoche_journal_2021_final/s/13249228

15) https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/579852901/asperger-s-and-unstoppable-matthew-kenslow-doesn-t-let-labels-limit-him

16) https://joinouramerica.org/stories/matthew-kenslow/?fbclid=IwAR3x2XqrN-urzVVLpG4uv04rGCJGK2bKdfaPGZUwVVbSgBcyQfFjb9K0kvM

17) https://www.ocregister.com/2015/12/08/photos-video-being-on-the-autism-spectrum-isnt-holding-back-costa-mesa-man/

(and more coming, I'm sure, which I will link here, if you still need more proof than the proof I gave you above).

And for gosh sake, he is the author to a book, so there's a "book" for you.

Thank you.

CCFT Historian (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I came to Matthew's page to update his Youtube subscriber count and then came here. I don't know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and just skimmed through the relevant guidelines and discussion guidelines and realize how ignorant I am to make a valid argument. I simply ask that you give him time. I see that Matthew is getting more and more in news and articles and not just those that the other user listed above. I personally believe he's notable and I agree with the other user who posted above that Newsweek clearly means you're in the public's interest, but hey I'm not the smartest and there's things you know more than I, but just know that my life and the lives of thousands others around that world have been changed with all his social media posts and TV and radio interviews. Through looking at his posts and googling his name, he's continuing to be published in a lot of articles and in news interviews and if I find some more articles, I'll drop the links in here. Also he did some radio interviews that weren't recorded and uploaded somewhere. I know because Matthew on social media tells of him being on radio and I listened to a couple of them live but the hosts didn't save the interview to listen to it again. What I believe this means is him getting more notable as time goes on. I ask that you keep the article for a while and let himself prove that he'll stay in the public eye greater than ever before.

Robert C 571 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put a rundown of the sources on the talk page. Unfortunately this looks to be someone who has a fan following, but has unfortunately generally been ignored by the sources Wikipedia would consider establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried finding more sourcing, but a look showed that there's just not much out there that would fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's just still WP:TOOSOON for an article. He's really only been covered by two outlets. There are some interviews, but arguing for those to be used towards notability would be extremely difficult at AfD and honestly, would still make for shaky sourcing. The awards and honors he's received are amazing, but not the type of thing that Wikipedia would see as something that would establish notability. It's honestly pretty frustrating because Kenslow is an excellent example of the type of person who should be receiving more coverage than he has, but hasn't. As much as I'd like for him to have an article, Wikipedia isn't meant to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as far as inequality in media coverage goes. It can take decades for people to gain more widespread attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@reader of the pack, I thank you for your time and I tell you really want what's best for Matthew. I'm trying not to defend the article because it's my first one or because I put in a lot of time, but like what Robert C said, millions of people's lives have been changed and he's just getting started. Plus he's been on stations that were never recorded or given a website to use as a source to prove that he's been on those station. And just two outlets? I gave you a whole list which isn't everything of multiple outlets. Okay you may be right that it's too soon but not for long! I found Matthew on a press release site or whatever so he's starting to get great PR which is why he was in Newsweek. And hey, Newsweek is NOT social media, so how can you say that this is entirely a fan following?? Plus, he's been on multiple news and radio stations, which aren't social media. I'm certain that by the end of this year he'll be all over in more "credible, reliable" sources with sustained coverage. You're right that it's pretty frustrating because as everybody will see, he is encyclopedic material. Again this is only the beginning and more articles, media outlet and coverage to come! Thank you. CCFT Historian (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an explanation about sourcing on the talk page. If a source is primary (ie, written by Kenslow) then it can't establish notability regardless of where it's posted. Interviews are often considered primary sources are well. It's a widespread enough opinion that I don't recommend using them to establish notability when something is up at AfD. I don't fully agree with the idea that interviews should only be seen as primary sources, as IMHO someone being interviewed implies that the outlet views them as notable (depending on the type and topic of the interview). I can understand the rationale and honestly, they're not the strongest sources to use to argue for notability as a whole. On the few times I've tried using them at AfD it's been to argue that there could be more sourcing out there that doesn't come up easily in a search. That isn't the case here as the notability giving sourcing is pretty slim, however. Honestly, it really does take a while for someone to gain the needed coverage. It's super common for people to be relatively or very well known within their communities but still fail to get the needed coverage. I mean, just look at some of the YT personalities out there - there was a deletion discussion on Dan Avidan even after Game Grumps became notable and Tabitha King was also brought up for deletion at one point. Notability is just that hard to establish. Luckily in both cases we were able to establish notability, but those are two people who you'd think would pass notability guidelines easily but were still questioned. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per ReaderofthePack. This is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON and the vast majority of the refs are unreliable (the Newsweek article is a case of self-citing as Kenslow is the author and it appears to be part of an essay-submission program). I also have serious WP:COI concerns regarding the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disney V.I.P. Dolls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find any coverage of this line of dolls anywhere, even in passing in Disney or Mattel articles. It may be possible to redirect or merge, but I'm not sure what it would be redirected to, and I don't think there's any substantial content here to merge that isn't fancruft. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney and Toys. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even a single source? Come off it. Fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kannur City Police. No prejudice against recreation if sources are found that clearly demonstrate independent notability, but at the same time we cannot keep on the mere presumption that they exist. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kannur City Police[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Was redirected to the city, and the redirect was reverted without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - A regional police force for a half million people is basically guaranteed to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The fact that they mostly aren't online and mostly aren't in English isn't a reason for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Per Thrparkth. Lots of sources available online both in Malayalam and English. DareshMohan (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to redirect to Kannur. DareshMohan (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. A quick check of Daresh's sources is not quickly giving me coverage that are either a) significantly addressing the police as an organization or group or b) non-routine ("cops arrest/investigate people" is clearly routine). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mellohi! does not meet GNG. Saturnrises (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kannur. The subject is probably notable, just have to dig deeper since search results are going to be filled with crime news but the article needs WP:TNT anyways. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tornadoes of 2008. I indicated a Merge closure but if there is no content worth salvaging at the main article, this page can simply be made into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Vancouver, Washington tornado[edit]

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

Nominating per request of 74.101.118.197, who lists the following rationale: another stub article that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. If a merge is necessary, can easily be merged into Tornadoes of 2008. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, a tornado in Washington state is far more uncommon than tornadoes in the Midwest or Southern US. Per WP:NTEMP, a Keep appears appropriate, but a merger to similar events, perhaps focusing on those in tornado-light areas such as the Pacific Northwest, might be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems appropriate to me. Should not be kept per above. Also same IP as requester.47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than merge, I think a redirect would be appropriate. The meat of this article can be rolled into Tornadoes of 2008 but this page should be kept to redirect to the relevant section of that page. Tornadoes in the Pacific Northwest certainly are rare, but an EF1 that caused less than US$1 million in damage, didn't damage any regionally significant structure, and has no noted fatalities or injuries doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY (events) - specifically that it didn't have lasting effects or have a large geographic scope. DJ Cane (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is the suggested option a merge/redirect to Tornadoes of 2008 or did you have another target in mind?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold this opinion for the reasons noted above. DJ Cane (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it seems like the discussion is divided between Keep/Merge or Redirect and different targets suggested. I'd rather not base a closure on one editor's opinion. It's too bad there isn't any deletion sorting for weather-related articles because I know we have plenty of active editors in this area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – The content here should be merged into Tornadoes of 2008, albeit appropiately (without the infobox). United States Man (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to add to the closing admin that this would usually be a routine merge in WP:SEVERE as we have begun the process of removing smaller tornado-centric articles and expanding sections in the yearly Tornadoes of 20XX articles. United States Man (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Afsordeh[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:ATHLETE Mr.weedle (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches in Arabic yielded zero examples of significant coverage. In fact, I could find nothing other than database pages and Wikipedia mirrors so looks like a clear WP:GNG fail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions provided by inexperienced editors in the discussion are given little weight, as they are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 04:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Finnih[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP. Non-notable academic, doesn't seem to satisfy any of WP:GNG, WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Citations are negligible [26] and I could not find any reviews of his books in reliable sources. Spicy (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Advertising, and Texas. Spicy (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF or GNG notability. WP:NAUTHOR looks plausible, and I was expecting to find reviews of books, but I did not succeed in doing so. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks plausible, and all references are legitimate. Books on Amazon has been published since 2017 and samples of the book relates to subject matter. Could use a little suggestion but article seems legit. Johnjacksonhtx (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC) — Johnjacksonhtx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The authors book is available for sale on Apple, Amazon and Goodreads and Amazon in particular has a few reviews and ratings. The authors course books have been published since 2017. Mleee7156 (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC) — Mleee7156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The subjects citation supports the content and the references seems to be from a reliable source. Amazon and Apple are also reliable sources notwithstanding a few user reviews and ratings. Perhaps, suggestion could be made on the article. Websamaria (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Websamaria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom. Lots of SPAs doing the rounds here. MT Train^Talk 17:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've opened and SPI as well at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjacksonhtx. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His cv [27] shows him as a brand-new PhD, far WP:TOOSOON to have the academic impact needed for WP:PROF, and that matches the Google Scholar results linked above. We also don't appear to have WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability. The likely promotional activities are relevant to his academic specialty, I suppose, but they don't help the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Simply publishing a few books is not sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR and no evidence of notability as an academic. -- Whpq (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cleanup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, lacks sources, lacks categories. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BogusDingle. I suspect that all the accounts repeatedly re-inserting this article are all connected. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not pass GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 06:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, should be reverted back to the redirect to cleanup. Greyjoy^talk 06:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM and GNG Atighot (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleanup, entirely non-notable (disclaimer that I am the user that most recently blanked and redirected it). eviolite (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleanup seems like a good idea to me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFILM or Draftify for improvements. Haueirlan (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleanup. Unequivocally fails WP:GNG. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avra, Pinal County, Arizona[edit]

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

No evidence of a populated place; appears to be a rail siding connected to a power station. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Avra was a Southern Pacific railroad siding. A huge solar farm owned by Avra Plantation Inc. is located there. Nothing to indicate this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with above, just a rail siding. MB 19:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zahreela[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, nothing found in a BEFORE except database sites. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any reviews even though it came in the 21st century. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have find and added some resources. I think it passes the notability standard. Vicozico13 (talk) 7:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC) strike sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that was added is a database site, which none count toward notability. Reviews are needed. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was unable to find any significant coverage. Fifthapril (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell Douglas Mark II Batwing[edit]

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

I'm nominating my own page for deletion as I have been made aware that the article's single source (a sign at the US Army Aviation Museum) is an error. The aircraft on display is a McDonnell Douglas Aquiline, not a "Mark II Batwing" as the museum claims. See this discussion. Given the sign's content (which can be seen in the first post of the discussion), I doubt the Aquiline and Mark II Batwing are the same aircraft, so I doubt a merger would be an option. I also don't see any value in keeping this article if its only known source is known to be in error. ZLEA _T\^C 02:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. ZLEA _T\^C 02:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably could have been speedy deleted, but if it's fake, it should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7. BilletsMauves^€500 09:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax Andre🚐 16:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an error. According to the linked discussion, the museum has been made aware of its mistake. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Akram Gizabi[edit]

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

Gizabi seems to be active member of the community however nothing notable to qualify for an article. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 01:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i agree, one of the two sources isn't even accessible with no archive available. VTVL (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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