Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

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 keep‎ . The nominator in a deletion discussion has to articulate a policy-based reason for an article deletion. But I also see a consensus to Keep this article given the additional sources supplied. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Mesa Police Department[edit]

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

GameOfAwesome (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and California. GameOfAwesome (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails GNG and NCORP. All the source material I could find was ROUTINE (police activity in the news, complaints against the police), as this article relies on the subject's website. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a major police department. It is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi (talk • contribs) 14:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search turned up a racial profiling incident (here and here) which seems to pass WP:ORGCRIT: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In addition to those, we can also add this trivial mention. Putting aside for the moment all of the primary sources cited, we can also add to the above a few other references already present in the article, such as this (trivial) and this one that does go into some detail about statistics. StonyBrook babble 08:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I added text to the article (under History section) about the racial profiling incident. @StonyBrook - thank you for the sources for that. Let's keep the article up. -Hannahthom7 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonably large police department and no rationale given for deletion in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2023 (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. Closed by User:Liz but somehow the script didn't close discussion, though article was deleted. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ShakeDeal[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill startup with no evidence of notability. The article relies on company announcements and press releases, which are insufficient to pass the WP:NCORP threshold. Maduant (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and India. Maduant (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This "start-up" is 6 years old now and the only coverage we have is funding announcements. If they haven't gotten critical notice in that time, there are likely no RS. I can't find anything beyond retailer PR websites and funding discussions. It's not even a start-up at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article about a B2B company, originally created via AfC. The article and its references largely concern service proposition and funding announcements, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. A couple of start-up industry awards are listed but these do not appear notable in their own right. Searches find a company founder being quoted in articles about wider economic prospects ([1], [2]), but I am not seeing the coverage about the firm itself needed to demonstrate notability here, nor is there an article on Vora Ventures which could provide a redirect alternative. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maduant Improve the Article: Appreciate your feedback and believe that additional sources could strengthen the article's credibility and meet the WP:NCORP threshold for notability. As the article was created in 2020 via 'AFC' template, and noticed that the information/citation may have become outdated. Instead of nominating for deletion, Addition of new sources can improve the article's notability. Niclepo (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject sources and BEFORE fails GNG and NCORP.  // Timothy :: talk  11:10, 27 April 2023 (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. Consensus is that the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. North America1000 06:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Dover[edit]

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

Being hounded by antivax people isn't terribly notable, her career is unremarkable, rest could be briefly covered in any number of Covid articles. I'm not seeing BLP, or simple GNG. Her fainting event was non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this story was giant news and covered in the big media. Here on MSNBC Chris Haye's show.[3]. This was beyond being "hounded by antivax people". Sgerbic (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is BLP1E. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that she is mainly notable for one event, but WP:BLP1E is a tool for deciding between an event article or a biographical article, so the correct conclusion to the BLP1E test is to keep this as an event article. I think there is plenty reliable sources that cover her fainting. CT55555(talk) 00:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the correct way to use "the BLP1E test" here is to delete the article. From WP:BLP1E: Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you click through to the further guidance WP:BIO1E and read the first line, it makes it abundantly clear what the guidance is about When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both and you'll note the three possible outcomes. CT55555(talk) 01:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. - I don't see how you can read that page and think it supports the argument that low-profile individuals tangentially involved in one event (by being harassed) should have more coverage here. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      People who do a media interview are not WP:LOWPROFILE. See:
      https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinformation/tiffany-dover-conspiracy-theorists-silence-rcna69401
      There is nothing sensationalist about articles that disprove misinformation. That is the opposite of sensationalism.
      I see that you don't follow my argument. That's OK. Let's agree to differ, let others opine, and let who ever closes the discussion judge our arguments on their merits. It's time to give space to others, so I hope we can leave this with an agreement to disagree, noting WP:BLUDGEON. CT55555(talk) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck my keep, having been persuaded by @Beccaynr's comment below. CT55555(talk) 20:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails BLP1E. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep. BLP1E employs the concept of "low-profile individual" (criteria 2) for exclusion. I believe Dover no longer meets that criteria, as she started to proactively interact with the national media two weeks ago. Re-reading the guidance, I see the policy is meant to protect people who don't wish to be in the limelight. Given the amplitude of the coverage by RS sources over more than two years and the different angles the story took (initial event; her own reaction and the hospital's; the increasing number of people affected over time; Dover talking about the story 2 years later), I think we have a wikipedia article.
Part of the difficulty is naming the article after the person rather than an event, but I wasn't able to find something more satisfactory. I fiddled with "Tiffany Dover affair" and others, but none of the sources provide alternatives. Robincantin (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I suggest renaming to something like Tiffany Dover vaccine death conspiracy. When CT55555 suggested that WP:BLP1E was about deciding between an event article or a biographical article, they were likely referring to its section hatnote article: WP:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. There, it gives the example of Travis Walton UFO incident as an event article name, rather than a BLP. That may be more appropriate here. Dover's fainting event was made famous not only by the anti-vaxxers but also by anyone who just didn't want to get a 'new' COVID-19 vaccine and those railing against mandatory vaccinations (even though they routinely get other vaccines and wouldn't be characterized as anti-vaxxers). It was forwarded as 'truth' by not an insignificant number of 'media'. There was a proliferation of false information spread about this event and everyone was affected by it. The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:Notability (events). The event had lasting repercussions that affected a large population, and geographic area (the entire USA, if not further afield). The proliferation of false information about the event spawned a lot of coverage by mainstream media (reliable sources) in order to denounce the false information. The false claims [4] and the counter-coverage persisted over a long period of time, and are still in play today, over two years later. Therefore my suggestion to 'keep' and rename to an event title such as Tiffany Dover vaccine death conspiracy. Grorp (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE with COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, person is non-notable and fails BLP1E.
Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We do not need standalone articles on every minor conspiratorial media blip propagated by conservatives, especially not when they're BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't appear to be much info that could be merged. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone who once fainted on camera and is not otherwise notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:DEL#REASON#9 - this article appears to breach WP:BLP policy and there does not appear to be a suitable merge target - the harassment of an individual, their family, and workplace does not appear WP:DUE or BLP-compliant in potentially related articles. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, this living person appears to have been the subject of news coverage 'largely or entirely from being a victim of another's actions', and Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. The intro to BLP policy cautions "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The harassment of a living person, her family, and her workplace also does not appear to be a notable WP:EVENT, per the guidelines to help determine whether content should be excluded as WP:NOTNEWS - for this harassment of a living person, her family, and her workplace, there does not appear to be a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance, or a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group. The initial burst of coverage (Dec 2020/Jan 2021), one Politifact source (Oct 2021) and a small flurry of coverage related to her recent NBC News interview seems closer to the WP:SENSATIONAL coverage we are cautioned against using for event and BLP articles. Also, this subject does not appear to be a "media personality" as discussed in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, and one recent interview does not seem to fit the overall pattern of high-profile activity described in the essay; the available sources indicate this is also WP:BLP1E, so WP:NOTNEWS further supports deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mainly per Beccaynr. WP:DEL-REASON gives Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion - there are WP:BLP concerns here. WP:1E, from the notability guideline also says avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. --Tristario (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a low profile individual who doesn't need this article hanging around her neck for the rest of her life. Clear WP:BLP1E for a low-profile individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Beccaynr, and the article fails WP:BLP1E. Isi96 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is clearly a BLP1E.  // Timothy :: talk  11:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her name possibly bears mention in a few articles on COVID 19 and/or the vaccine but there's not enough here to hang an article on. --Jayron32 12:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 'publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts', as described in WP:BLPNAME, could potentially help support a mention of the event in other potentially-related articles, but we do not seem to have that quality or quantity of sourcing available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. CastJared (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2023 (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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Spigelman[edit]

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

Non-notable military spokesperson and political advisor Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2023 (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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pete[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic actor. Being in the AVN hall of fame is swell, but we have no coverage in RS talking about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Mr. Pete has been performing regularly since 23 years ago. According to IAFD.com he appears in over 3580 titles as a performer and 98 titles as a director. In addition, he has been awarded by AVN, XRCO and XBIZ, the most relevant adult film companies at the present moment. Finally, he has wikipedia pages in french, italian, spanish and swedish among other foreign languages. Therefore, I do not get your point when you say Mr. Pete is a non-notable pornographic actor. cantarach (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has no coverage in reliable sources, see the links posted above under the nomination. Wikipedia notability. He isn't discussed in the New York Times or books. We can't keep articles that aren't discussed by other individuals. IAFD is not a source we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And your Mr. Pete article has already been turned down three times, per the discussion links on your talk page. You should fully understand why it's not notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted those links because I thought that obviously, they would be more interesting to Wikipedia. cantarach (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you can find articles on Wikipedia about Mr. Pete in different languages, for example french, italian or spanish. They look very similar to the one I wrote and I cannot understand why you do like those articles mentioned but not mine. cantarach (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in those Wikipedia articles are unreliable and unacceptable for biographies of living persons. IMDb biographical information is user-generated content. The Spanish Wikipedia page cites IMDb and Who Dated Who (also unreliable). The French Wikipedia page is translated from the Italian page. That one cites self-published aiwards.com. Even if the sources were reliable, the awards roster listings don't constitute significant coverage. The Russian page appears to be a translated from the English-language page deleted in 2022. Swedish: no sources. Unacceptable in all cases. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this article is linked to the main companies. I did that originally, because I thought that it would be more interesting to Wikipedia. cantarach (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to keep discussing it at this point, we'll let the process play out. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing in the article is exceptionally bad. Searching for independent RS coverage comes up with nil. Failure of WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Pretty much the same problems as the 2022 deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost half the sourcing is Imdb is crowd sourced, i.e., the bio subject could have edited the source himself. Much of the other sourcing is questionable. Most of the awards are not sourced. Only two sourced for all three main sections. There's a reason this is a stub article - not much content or substance. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG not there, nothing changed in notability since last deletion. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:49, 29 April 2023 (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 18:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Dasher[edit]

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

Non-notable "viral sensation". Has may views on tik tok, but no critical notice, never had a charted single and no coverage in RS/extensive coverage upon which we can build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With nearly a dozen or more other articles on this site for "viral sensations," I don't think your argument holds much weight. She's featured in a national ad campaign, headlining tours with major acts, written songs for others, and sang/played on other recordings, she's got enough information out there to build a case. There are similar musicians like her on this site that have never had a charted single. Where are these unwritten rules for creating an article for someone? And if there is such rules, who selectively follows them? Bluesman2383 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the rules of singers are pretty clear, see WP:MN. She's not appeared in published works, had two or more records/singles, has never charted nor certified gold. She likely also doesn't meet WP:BIO as we don't have multiple sources discussing her at length. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One small biography for the scholarship, rest are linkedin, tour bios and non-RS websites. She hasn't received enough critical attention for her works. Being featured in an ad campaign is fine, but we need things that talk about her, none of which we have. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's been on Rachel Ray - there's a newspaper article in their from The Tennessean and a Billboard Magazine article. Not sure those are non-RS websites. Again, feeling like you are arbitrarily nitpicking. There's many others on here with far less that remain or are considered "stubs." Bluesman2383 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Ray isn't a reliable source. Those other two might not be extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a review in PopMatters (2021) of The Half Record, and a review with some interview in the The Moultrie Observer (2021) that notes her TikTok popularity due to her "Stand by Your Pan" cooking series in 2020, and "she has recently been named in the Class of 2021 CMT Next Women of Country". The CMT list has 10 country artists, and a solid graf summarizing her career through Jan. 2021. Dasher was also interviewed by American Songwriter in 2021, which includes some contextual details about her career (e.g. "named a 2021 Fender Next Artist", when she began releasing music, performers she has opened for). The 2021 People interview does not seem to have much independent context (but does mention "co-writing credits on Lainey Wilson's song "LA" off her 2019 EP Redneck Hollywood"). The CMT Next Women of Country is reported on by The Tennessean in 2022, with quotes from Dasher, who is introduced as "With hair teased to the heavens and wearing a trademark polyester bell-bottomed pantsuit, Aug. 31 showcase performer Hannah Dasher is the ideal person to speak about what CMT's Next Women of Country program means...". A 2020 Rolling Stone list of Country Music Picks for the Week of November 23rd includes her "Girls Call the Shots" song; Guitar.com in 2022 notes "In the past year, Fender have features [sic] countless female Player Plus artists on it’s [sic] TikTok account, such as Country musician Hannah Dasher...". I think this article would benefit from some clean up for tone/puffery and to remove social media and blog references, but there appears to be some support for WP:BASIC notability based on her TikTok and music career. Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's points. BLP, fails GNG and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  12:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the reliable sources coverage identified by Beccaynr show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As always I admire the work done by Beccaynr in analyzing sources. However, I have a different assessment of the sources. I don't think that her "awards" are significant. The kind of "next women" thing is at best promotional, and has little factual value. Who knows how they pick the ten but I'd bet money that there's nothing scientific about it. The People magazine is a puff piece (of course). The other sources, American Songwriter, Country Swag -- the former article could possibly be considered reliable and significant. The latter, again, is mainly promotional. Other than that I get her name-checked but that's about it. As far as I can tell, she hasn't charted on a national chart. (Someone please let me know if I got that wrong - I don't know much anything about country music charting.) Lamona (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I am also concerned about the promotional sources, and Lamona's assessment helps clarify my view that the interviews, 2021 CMT 'Ten Women Who Are on the Verge of Breakout Success' recognition, and limited secondary coverage of her music is not enough to support WP:BASIC notability - my !vote is weak because there is some coverage, but we do not yet seem to have sufficient independent secondary coverage to support WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Grand Old Opry in Nashville lists her as one of their artists. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to the source analysis by Lamona and Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Lamona's analysis of the referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2023 (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 05:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Begimay Karybekova[edit]

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

Notability guidline Panam2014 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Source
Original is 404 and archive page is stalling 1. "#begimaykarybekova" (in Russian). stapico.ru. 8 July 2018. Archived from the original on 13 May 2021. Retrieved 8 July 2018.
Failed V, 404 2. ^ "Begimay Karybekova". missintercontinental.com. 8 July 2018.
404 redirect to home page 3. ^ "Bị Trung Quốc đánh rớt visa, Miss Kyrgyzstan chuyển hướng thi Hoa hậu Hoàn vũ" (in Vietnamese). baomoi.com. 8 July 2018.
Promo, photo spread 4. ^ "Miss Kyrgyzstan 2017 crowned". akipress.com. 8 July 2018.
Two sentences about becoming a model, quote from subject, not IS RS with SIGCOV https://24.kg/english/136285__Kyrgyzstani_Begimai_Karybekova_becomes_model_of_Emporio_Armani_/amp/
BEFORE showed promo, nothing from IS RS that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  19:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Notability Sucks 109.78.221.41 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the source table above, nothing beyond routine coverage. I can't find anything extra about this person. Not meeting BLP. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 109.78.221.41 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . North America1000 06:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Women's Basketball League[edit]

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

Another contested redirect without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage, just a few mentions, to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Searches in websites themselves do reveal some sources like match reports and announcements. Sadly I don't have the time to go through them to see what really counts towards the GNG so I'll just drop it here if anyone else wants to take a look: Hürriyet, Milliyet, Sözcü, Sabah. ~StyyxTalk? 14:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article, as a second-level women's basketball league affiliated to FIBA Europe, has significant reliable sources to meet GNG. As the comment above says, news, announcements and reports may be found in several sources. Oltnilhn (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, no evidence of passing GNG or ORG. The above is just routine sports news about games and individuals, nothing that shows notability. BEFORE showed database, routine sports news, and primary, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I agree with Oltnilhn rv to redirect, this should not be a redirect, because nothing in article is properly sourced. Oppose Draft because nothing will change in the next six months that will show notability and this would just be a backdoor to deletion.  // Timothy :: talk  02:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ voorts[1] 21:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Mile in His Shoes[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:NFILM. The only reviews I could find are from three Christian websites, which briefly describe the plot and note whether it is appropriate for children being raised in the Christian faith. Those reviews are at Movie Mom (which is no longer live), Common Sense Media, and Dove.org. Setting aside whether those sources are reliable, none of the reviews meet the standard for significant coverage as they are brief, highly context specific, and do not contain any additional relevant information about the film. voorts[2] 17:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - user:Donaldd23 opposed the WP:PROD and tagged the article as needing citations for verification, which is a legitimate alternative to deletion (WP:ATD). That process needs to be allowed some time to work out rather than going immediately to AfD. I'd be more likely to support merging into Frank Nappi than outright deletion (although I think with a little time and effort, satisfactory sources could be turned up). ButlerBlog (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not sure why "Christian" sites are being dismissed in regards to this film. Common Sense Media is listed as a Reliable Source for Wikipedia: WP:RSPSOURCES. The Dove Foundation (Dove.org), while not specifically listed on the RS page, is respected American non-profit organization and has been used hundreds of times in deletion discussions are an arguement for keep. Therefore, these 2 reviews passes WP:NFO easily, as condition one of that guidelines says "film(s) (that are) widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."

This deletion discussion should not be happening as I fully explained this in the summary when I removed the PROD.[7] DonaldD23 talk to me 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are also reviews at Box Office Revolution[8], and the Movie Mom one is listed as a Critic Review at Rotten Tomatoes [9]. The fact that it is no longer a live link is irrelevant. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not arguing that the websites should be dismissed because they're Christian, but rather because they reviews are solely related to whether the films are suitable for viewing by Christian youths. The review on each of the three websites I noted are 2-3 paragraphs long; I wouldn't describe those as "full-length" or significant reviews. Moreover, WP:NFO says that the existence of two full-length reviews will "generally indicate" a film would meet the criterion for notability, not that it necessarily will. voorts[5] 20:42, 22 April 2023 (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.

References

  1. ^ See talk page.
  2. ^ See talk page.
  3. ^ See talk page.
  4. ^ See talk page.
  5. ^ See talk 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 Light pollution. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient to distinguish this. History remains should that change. Star Mississippi 19:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overillumination[edit]

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

Several contributors have noted dubious claims in the article and that the content of the article is not very related to the subject of the article. The article has been nominated before on 2021-12-26 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overillumination), and this is same reason as the last time. No significant updates or improvements have been done to the article since. Sauer202 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see an argument that this is not a notable topic so this appears to be a WP:TNT deletion request. The article is not in that bad of shape WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:NODEADLINES and WP:DOIT for the complaint that the article hasn't been fixed since the last AfD in January 2022. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is notable, the article could certainly be much improved, but it's nowhere near bad enough for TNT. Elemimele (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Light pollution. I stand my ground from the previous AfD that the topic is too similar, in that both topics are about an excess of artificial light. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Light pollution, which seems to be be broadly the same thing. Most of the Overillumination article content is poor and can be thrown out. If enough high-quality content specific to indoor light pollution ever manifests then it can be spun back out into a separate article. Popcornfud (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Popcornfud is making a WP:TNT argument. My AfD experience is that these don't frequently prevail. Normally the community prefers to improve flawed articles on notable subjects. What do you see as barriers to improving this article? Also, what is your assessment of the content at Light_pollution#Over-illumination? ~Kvng (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:NOPAGE: several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page etc. This doesn't need to be its own page as far as I can tell. Popcornfud (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe most people and most of the light pollution lead understand(s) it to be a nighttime problem. It makes sense to cover overillumination separately if that's the case. ~Kvng (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel it lacks a good definition of what overillumination really is. Open question: Why shouldn't it be possible to have light pollution during daylight? Sauer202 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:SPINOFF, Overillumination is already a sub-topic of a fairly long Light pollution article, so a redirect wouldn't be useful. It would be better to clean up the article in question. Praemonitus (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clean it up sounds good, but who are going to clean up the article and when? There are so many good articles that are deleted or moved to draftspace on Wikipedia every day, why should this article be an exception? It has been standing in pretty poor condition for years, and in my opinion most of the content is not relevant to the article topic. Overillumination sounds like term describing a situation where there is presence of too much light, if there even exists such a thing (debatable, but that is what the article could be used to demonstrate). Instead, much of the discussion in the article is about efficient energy use, which is a separate topic and has nothing to do with light pollution - one has to do with energy usage, the other has to do with effects of too much light. Sauer202 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Clean it up sounds good, but who are going to clean up the article and when?" Quite. Realistically, this almost never happens, and when it does happen the article require rewriting from scratch. WP:TNT, please. Popcornfud (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Light pollution, clearly an unneeded CFORK that dups an existing topics.  // Timothy :: talk  13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Treating this as a CFORK presents a problem as they're two different subjects. Anyone actually reading the article on Light pollution will find the following definition, backed by 4 sources: "Light pollution is the presence of anthropogenic artificial light in otherwise dark conditions" (my italics). Overillumination however has a definition "Overillumination is the presence of lighting intensity higher than that which is appropriate for a specific activity. Overillumination was commonly ignored between 1950 and 1995, especially in office and retail environments."
    One is talking about dark environments, the other about light environments.
    We cannot write about overillumination of retail etc. environments (which is undoubtedly an encyclopaedic and notable topic) in the Light pollution unless we change the definition there, and that's going to be impossible to do given that it's very well sourced. So if we delete this article, we can't discuss the subject anywhere. Elemimele (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the point here, but I don't think the conclusion is quite correct. I believe we can cover related concepts under a single article if there isn't sufficient content to justify a separate page for the other concept. Popcornfud (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting overillumination would not make it a forbidden topic for the eternal future. Quite the contrary, I would love for the article to become good. It just currently sucks very bad, and is written from such a skewed viewpoint that I don't feel it is good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It edges towards unscientific if not unscientific. Alternatively I suggest to instead move it to draftspace, so it can die in peace unless someone™ actually comes and improves it. Sauer202 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That someone could be you. It is annoying when editors say things suck and won't lift a finger to improve them. WP:NOTHERE? ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have reinserted material that was removed due to a lack of sourcing WP:V. This has been reverted per WP:BURDEN. If you wish to include material in the article you need to provide sources.  // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Light pollution. This article is really redundant in scope with light pollution, and honestly, the light pollution article's content on this is not distinctly different in size either, so there's no real justification for a spinoff. I'm not really seeing anything that has to be merged either, so as others have said, probably best to just start from scratch and work within the parent article instead for focus. KoA (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep votes have failed to provide sources showing this is a distinct topic from Light pollution and have failed to address why this fork is needed.  // Timothy :: talk  14:31, 30 April 2023 (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 . Joyous! Noise! 17:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3LOGY[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE check only found the one source already in the article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . Sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 19:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Jovanovic[edit]

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

Another contested draftification without any improvement. Not a single in-depth reference from an independent, secondary, reliable source. Onel5969 TT me 12:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage in sources such as this and this, both from a very quick Google search, nominator has clearly failed to comply with BEFORE, again. GiantSnowman 15:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. 58.169.135.250 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - of the above two sources provided, the first is not an independent source, and the second is a blogpost.Onel5969 TT me 09:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro A-League Men whic receives lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Of the above sources, one is a primary source from the Australian Professional Leagues Company and the other is from a fan blog that "anyone can contribute to" per their own site. Alvaldi (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources that exist are reliable. Improve the page, don't delete it. Milkk7 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Milkk7 While sources exists, they are either not independent or reliable. A source from a league where the subject is playing is not independent from him as the league has direct interest in to promote its teams and players. And a fan blog is not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED. Per WP:NSPORT, athletes must pass the general notability guideline and to pass GNG the subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As a mere existence of sources does not prove notability and the subject currently fails GNG, can you explain why the page should be kept? Alvaldi (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hack (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically in the majority, the "keep" !votes fail to convince. It would be good if two sources could be found that are unequivocally reliable, independent, and in-depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete other than first-person or sources related to his club, there is no extensive coverage in third-party sources we can use. He might be notable, but we need sourcing about the person to keep the article. Please review what we consider RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG as top level pro player. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seacactus 13 Being a top level pro player is curiously absent from the GNG requirement of subjects having to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Can you elaborate on how being a top level pro player without any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject passes a guideline that requires exactly that? Alvaldi (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources are independent. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
  • Player stats >> 1.  "Player statistics for Luka Jovanovic - GameDay". My gameday. 7 October 2022.
  • Routine sports news >> 2. ^ "Reds promote promising duo to senior mens squad". Adelaide United. 5 July 2022.
  • Game news, nothing about subject >> 3. ^ "Western United FC vs Adelaide United FC". KEEPUP. 6 November 2022.
  • Awards show, played in list, nothing SIGCOV >> 4. ^ "Celebration of Football 2022 The Award Winners". Football SA. 10 October 2022.
  • Routine game news, intervew >> 5. ^ "DREAM-COME-TRUE FOR JOVANOVIĆ WITH MAIDEN GOAL". Adelaide United. 11 March 2023.
  • Routine sports news >> 6. ^ "Goodwin, Irankunda propel Adelaide past Jets in ALM". The West Australian. 11 March 2023.
  • Routine game news, interview >> 7. ^ "The Wanderers star mentoring an Adelaide young gun who's also eligible to represent a European giant". KEEPUP. 21 April 2023.
BEFORE showed stats and interviews, but nothing that meets IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  13:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please do a source eval of how your most recent article Serhii Korovayny meets the standards above that you apply to others articles? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz WP:OTHERSTUFF. You are more than welcome to take that article to AfD if you believe it fails GNG but discussion about it does not belong here. Alvaldi (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2023 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 South Australian state election[edit]

2026 South Australian state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon. Remind when 2026 is? Isn't this just an example of someone wanting to be the creator of what will be an article eventually? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Appropriate WP:AfC were not followed for Draft:2026 South Australian state election. Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedy-deleted or listed for AFD, and repeated attempts may even lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruption. In the meantime, we hope that you expand some of our already existing articles. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, keep and speedy close because we have other articles about upcoming state/territory/federal elections, including some that are further away. Anyway, I've added an opinion polling section, so the election has had some coverage. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. --Randykitty (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding other upcoming elections, please see the discussion here.--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Star Mississippi 19:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leith Ross (singer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is of the "got X number of streams on Spotify" variety, which is no part of our notability criteria for musicians at all.
The "awards" criterion, meanwhile, is looking for top-level national awards that get media coverage for the purposes of establishing the notability of the award, such as a Grammy or a Juno, so the "John Prine Songwriter Fellowship" (sourced to its own self-published content about itself) isn't cutting it -- and the touring criterion is not automatically passed by every single musician who does a tour, but requires the tour itself to be the subject of media coverage (e.g. concert reviews, analysis of the creative significance of the tour, etc.) in GNG-worthy media sources, and just sourcing the existence of a tour to press releases self-published by the artist's record label to announce the tour isn't good enough.
But this is referenced almost entirely to bad sources that aren't GNG-building at all -- blogs, PR self-published by Leith Ross's record label, university student media, Q&A interviews where Leith Ross is answering questions in the first person rather than being talked about or analyzed in the third, and on and so forth. Out of 20 footnotes, just one (an album review in Exclaim!) counts as a reliable or GNG-building source at all, but one valid source isn't enough all by itself.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when Leith has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears TOOSOON. At this point, there just isn't enough about the person to craft an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The article needs beefing up and clean up for sure, but at a glance it clearly meets WP:BAND on at least criteria 1 (I see headlining articles from Clash, The Michigan Daily, Exclaim!, ON Magazine, and Yahoo! in the reflist), and since they seem to have toured both nationally in Canada and internationally in the US and Europe, that would meet criteria 4 as well. Again, the article needs a lot of work, but I'd say it absolutely meets the notability requirements to avoid deletion and deserves a chance to be improved. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional: I just edited the article to add more RS sources and better reflect their notability. They've been pretty widely covered by notable outlets like Clash, Exclaim!, Canada's National Observer, and Them, (some of it from before they went viral), as well as by notable bloggers like Alan Cross and Eric Alper, are signed to Interscope and Republic Records, and have toured internationally with Lord Huron, Andy Shauf, and Helena Deland. Notability seems pretty secure at this point. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also just want to state that though the John Prine fellowship is not a Grammy, it is still an immense honor, especially for Ross to be the first ever recipient. Newport Folk Festival is one of the oldest, most iconic festivals and music institutions in America and Prine was folk royalty. His sudden death, especially being from COVID at the beginning of the pandemic, was a tragedy to many legendary songwriters and industry decision-makers. To have Ross, who has only been putting music out since the pandemic started, be chosen as the recipient of the first fellowship in his name, on behalf of Newport, is a major feat! Just wanted to put this out there because I know many fellowships can be simpler in essence to achieve but this one truly demonstrates the faith industry titans have in Ross and their abilities. Elttaruuu (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elttaruuu brings up a good point; the Newport Folk Festival isn't some small local thing, it's been running since 1959 and has hosted historic events like the Electric Dylan controversy and key early performances by Kris Kristofferson and James Taylor, and John Prine is widely regarded as one of the most influential and revered folk singer-songwriters of his generation. It's not the only point of notability here to be sure, but an artist being the first to receive an award of that pedigree before they've even released a full album is no small feat. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally awards of the significance we’re talking about merit their own page. This one isn’t even mentioned on the festival page. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, which is why I said it's not the only point of notability. For that I would point to substantial coverage in multiple RS sources, touring internationally with notable artists, and being signed to two major labels. Subject pretty solidly fulfills WP:BAND from where I'm sitting, especially for a newer TikTok artist. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m still reviewing the overall coverage to make up my mind, but the award is not a point of notability at all. Also touring is not in and of itself important: only the extent to which there is non-trivial coverage of a tour, which the entry doesn’t offer. Label also does not go to wiki notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point (I'd argue that being signed to Republic and Interscope is a big deal but granted that releasing a few singles on a major is not the same as releasing a full album with one). I think the coverage from National Observer, Clash, and Exclaim! count for a lot (and even the non-notable sources seem to largely be either notable bloggers or sites that at least have an editorial staff), but I recognize that simple album reviews and news of song releases are sometimes considered non-trivial. I'd argue the subject still has a fair amount of notability, and at most I would recommend moving to draftspace rather than deleting, as I suspect they will receive more substantial coverage with their album coming out. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s also not on the folk fest page because it happened last year and as iconic and critical as so many events like these are to these festivals they have also become major money makers in the last couple of decades and are focused on devoting everything to upcoming profit. Red Line Roots, a prominent folk magazine, spoke about longtime director and producer of the festival introducing Leith personally to the crowd and getting emotional speaking about Prine’s impact and carrying that on through musicians like Leith Ross. http://www.redlineroots.com/2022/09/newport-2022/ Elttaruuu (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Longtime director and producer *Jay Sweet Elttaruuu (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears Ross may have opened the festival and their performance and achievement of the fellowship was named in Rolling Stone https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/newport-folk-festival-best-performances-1386848/amp/ Elttaruuu (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The extent to which any award makes its winners notable enough for Wikipedia articles by virtue of having won it is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which you can or cannot source their win to media coverage demonstrating that the award would pass WP:GNG in the first place. Awards that cannot be sourced to media coverage are not notable awards, and cannot make their winners notable for winning them. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is Rolling Stone and Red Line Roots not media coverage? Elttaruuu (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, "Red Line Roots" is a WordPress blog, not a real or reliable media outlet, so it counts for absolutely nothing toward establishing the notability of anyone or anything. Secondly, at the time I initiated this discussion (and at the time I added this comment), the only source for the John Prine fellowship was also a blog entry on another unreliable blog that isn't a notability builder either. Rolling Stone is certainly a legitimate and usable source, but it wasn't in the article the last time I looked at it, and thus it's not my job to have known about a source that wasn't in the article yet. But overall, evaluating the sources that are in the article now, the balance of the footnoting is still tilted far too strongly onto bad sources that don't establish notability, like Red Line Roots and the All-Campus Radio Network and YouTube videos and glancing namechecks of Leith Ross's existence in sources that aren't about Leith Ross (e.g. a person isn't notable just because some other person says "I like their music" in an interview that's fundamentally about that other person, so the Allison Ponthier interview in Cosmopolitan is not helping to establish any notability). What's left for reliable source coverage that has Leith Ross as its subject simply doesn't add up to enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Rolling Stone:
Leith Ross Carries On John Prine’s Legacy
This year’s Newport kicked off in full force with a stunning Friday-morning opening from Leith Ross, the first-ever recipient of the festival’s John Prine Songwriter Fellowship. The Ottawa-raised singer-songwriter’s set of cry-laugh originals honored the late legend’s legacy in more ways than one, as they shared moving songs about family (“Understood”), hard-to-forget flames (“I’d Have to Think About It”), and a song about the melancholy of mortality disguised as an homage to Ross’ grandfather (“Tommy”). “Oh, what a terrible burden/These decisions of mine,” they sang on the latter, just one of many gut-punch lines from a singer who seems poised for a career full of many more of those to come. Elttaruuu (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, @Elttaruuu, the content matters much less than how much content there is. So instead of quoting a paragraph, it would be much more helpful to show there are many paragraphs in many good-quality sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clash (multiple articles from), The Michigan Daily, Exclaim!, ON Magazine, Yahoo!, The Canada Observer, Them --- what am I missing here? Elttaruuu (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
feels absurd to act as though there aren't thousands of music articles on here with far less notability than this one that still pass notability Elttaruuu (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OSE. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan Daily has been removed as it’s student media at a school with no connection to Leith. I will continue to look through the others but as Bearcat says and I have pointed out to you previously, it’s really hard to suss out the case for notability when an entry has a large number of sources that are poor-quality or only passing mentions. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every article here is entirely focused on the subject at hand, minus the festival articles because these magazines rarely cover individual artist sets when they have so much coverage to do of an event. Elttaruuu (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say I'm starting to see the arguments against. While it's true the subject has coverage from know reliable outlets, with the exception of maybe the National Observer article, most of them either aren't focused on Ross or are album reviews or short news updates about new singles, which don't usually count for non-trivial coverage since music sites do those for thousands of artists and they don't usually give much info about the artist.
I do maintain that I think this article should be moved to draftspace rather than deleted wholesale, as I think the artist is likely to receive more coverage in the near future with an album coming out on a major label. But at least at present, I'm starting to see the arguments against notability. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, besides winning a fellowship, there still isn't critical discussion of the artist. I'm not seeing notability, likely TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Like I said, I'm in favor of it being moved to draft, at least temporarily, to see if their debut album's release generates more significant coverage. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ross has had lots of coverage in major publication (indeed I came here because they're featured as the main artist on NME.com). Perhaps there wasn't much coverage once upon a time, but I think it's one of the most obvious keeps I've see Cavie78 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NME article is actually really helpful, since it's a non-trivial profile and not just routine coverage like an album review or news announcement. In fact, assuming we're also counting this National Observer article as non-trivial coverage (which I personally would, as their picture is at the top and it discusses their music and an album they helped organize in significant detail), that could be enough to satisfy WP:BAND? I think I might be changing my vote to keep. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also this AllMusic bio. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I would not call this a particularly strong case (Cavie78, I see this is only the second AfD you’ve participated in since 2010–notability criteria have gotten a lot more stringent since then), but, definitely it’s improved with the NME profile. The sum is good enough for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] is plenty enough to meet WP:MUSIC bullet 1; with those five sources alone I would have written the article myself. Chubbles (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm back at Keep. There's enough coverage at this point.Invisiboy42293 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GEC Medical[edit]

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

Only references given are service manuals for units. Can't see anything that could be added. - RichT|C|E-Mail 15:35, 22 April 2023 (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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Batista[edit]

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

Had a brief professional career with Freamunde then dropped to amateur level and disappeared. My searches only yielded social media, stats sites and mentions on Blogspot. I couldn't find anything that would count towards WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. No sources and a primary EL and stat page. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are 404, and stats. BEFORE showed stats, mentions in game articles, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Kumar Rai[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least this nomination has led to me learning something about the government of Nepal. It seems that "Home Secretary" is a civil service position in that country, rather than the senior cabinet role that goes under that name in some others, such as the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE show no IS RS with SIGCOV. Subject is listed on government websites, but nothing IS. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  07:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The discussion fell along two main lines: one group felt that there was insufficient depth of coverage to support the BLP, the other noted the subject was name-checked in several reliable sources as an important political operative, and was notable. I don't see that either group was able to push through to gain consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Solomon[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Passing mentions are not enough for WP:NBIO. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reuben Solomon meets the notability guidelines for a BLP article, as he has been featured substantially in multiple articles from leading and reputable UK news sources. These articles provide significant coverage of Solomon, discussing his key roles and contributions in shaping digital strategies for influential political campaigns, and demonstrating his notability as an individual in the field of political communication. The available sources are reliable and independent, further supporting the stand-alone article on Reuben Solomon that adheres to notability standards. Typically, read the article entitled "Liz Truss v Rishi Sunak: Who's winning the social media war?", BBC, 23 July 2022, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62238068. This reputable BBC article delves into the distinct differences between Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak’s digital campaigns in their bid for Prime Minister. Reuben Solomon, who “runs Truss’ social team”, is focused on as leading and shaping her digital strategy as the article contrasts both digital campaigns, emphasizing the significance of digital media communication in modern political races. BLP certainly meets WP:NBIO.Didgeridoo2022 (talk 12:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, United Kingdom, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/comment Well, I think all sources discusses the subject in enough depth accord with WP:BIO etc. For example, The Telegraph article examines key members of Liz Truss’s team, with a particular focus on Reuben Solomon. Similarly, before becoming a Special Adviser, he was covered by The Guardian, which exposed him as the person behind influential political advertising campaigns. This significant coverage generated a lot of interest on social media. And, The Byline Times article also covers him. Actually, I believe that in the UK he is notable due to the recent political events and involvement of social media in campaigns. B&W penguin (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources' publications are generally reliable, however the mentions seem pretty slim and in-passing on my reading. I can't access The Telegraph article B&W Penguin refers to, but other Telegraph articles I can access barely mention him. The other sources on the page similarly briefly mention him at best. Similarly, The Guardian article refers to Solomon as one of the "individual[s] with the ability to place adverts" on a Facebook page, who "worked for Crosby", "is also connected to a page called We are the 52%" and is "listed as an administrator on at least a dozen other pro-Brexit pages". I don't see how this meets WP:ANYBIO? The BBC article Digeridoo refers to mentions Solomon once: "Liz Truss's social team, run by Reuben Solomon, former head of digital at the Conservative Party, and a protege of Boris Johnson's favourite election strategist Sir Lynton Crosby, have played it safer so far.". Again, I can't see this passing mention meeting WP:ANYBIO? I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a webmaster for a political party, that's basically what a social media strategist is these days. He's in the PR department and runs things, which isn't otherwise notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He gets brief mentions in sources, but nothing in total to push him to WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expanding on what I wrote earlier and for those who cannot access The Telegraph, here is a synopsis:

How Liz Truss snapped up the finest minds in wonkland to run her bid for No 10. The Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/how-liz-truss-plundered-best-westminster-wonkland-take-rishi/ 27 July 2022 The Telegraph article examines key members of Liz Truss’s team, with a particular focus on Reuben Solomon, who occupies “one of the most critical roles” as the head of digital. This article prominently features a photo of Reuben Solomon. Controversial articles about digital campaigns. Facebook Brexit ads secretly run by staff of Lynton Crosby firm. The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/03/grassroots-facebook-brexit-ads-secretly-run-by-staff-of-lynton-crosby-firm Wed 3 Apr 2019 The Guardian’s article highlights Reuben Solomon as a central figure in discreetly orchestrating “hugely influential” pro-Brexit Facebook advertising campaigns. It discloses Solomon’s significant role in managing influential groups that together spent up to £1 million on targeted advertising. This article garnered substantial attention on social media in 2019 and has been cited by The Guardian on multiple times, including here and as recently as last year. Content Creating Over Policy Making: The Next Instagram Prime Minister. Byline Times - https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/28/content-creating-over-policy-making-the-next-instagram-prime-minister/ 28 July 2022 The Byline Times article emphasizes the growing importance of branding and social media presence over policy in the leadership race, underscoring Reuben Solomon’s crucial role in Truss’s campaign, managing her social media strategy. As both candidates focus on their online presence and catchy slogans, the article implies that they might prioritize content creation over policy making. So we have more than just “passing mentions” and therefore the article does meet WP:BIO. This also refutes that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON which states “If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered.”Didgeridoo2022 talk 01:06, 4 Apr 2023 (UTC)

Hello Didgeridoo2022. I don't think that those articles cover Mr Soloman in sufficient depth to meet WP:NBIO. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm in general agreement with what B&W Penguin says above and most of what Didgeridoo2022 says. The media mentions about Solomon do mean he is notable enough to justify WP:BIO in my opinion, however, I do think at times the article erred away from neutrality in it's tone with reference to some of the points such as Solomon's nickname of 'Social Media Wizard'. I have trimmed the article myself to address this and believe it now reads much more as a neutral article. As said previously, my opinion is that the article is justified due to Solomon's various roles with the UK government and his mentions in the media. Nmill8093 (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article is well-sourced and meets WP:NBIO. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, Reuben Solomon has been featured in multiple other respected publications. Before Liz Truss became Prime Minister, The Times, a respected national newspaper in Britain, highlighted Reuben Solomon in the article “Liz Truss’s blueprint for her first month as prime minister.” (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-trusss-blueprint-for-her-first-month-as-prime-minister-hlggwh27x). Under the heading “Appointing the big beasts” the article identifies him as Truss’s ‘social media wizard’ at the Foreign Office “credited with keeping her profile as slick as her competitor’s, is in line to become the head of digital.” Then when she did become Prime Minister, Politico (a leading political news outlet) published an article titled “How Liz Truss did it,” (https://www.politico.eu/article/how-liz-truss-did-it/) which highlighted him as a key adviser assembled on her campaign team throughout the summer. Two articles in PR Week, (a leading publication in the PR industry) also covered him in the context of Truss’s senior team. In the article, the director of WPI (a political strategy firm) stated that “Her Downing Street team will undoubtedly include a top-class digital operator, likely Reuben Solomon, who will ensure she continues to communicate directly with the electorate” (https://www.prweek.com/article/1798063/liz-truss-plan-no-10-comms) while another article described Solomon's role as the person “in charge” of managing the Prime Minister's social media presence. (https://www.prweek.com/article/1798129/team-truss-taking-shape-raft-comms-hires). In a separate search, I found additional coverage of Reuben Solomon: “Spads, super-strategists and secret weapons — meet the real stars behind the Tory leadership campaigns.” from The Evening Standard, a widely read, London-based newspaper. This article provides an in-depth look at the key players involved in the Conservative Party leadership campaigns. It highlights the various experts, advisers, and strategists who have played a crucial role in shaping the campaigns and includes Solomon under the sub-heading “The Instagram experts”, highlighting him as the former CCHQ head of digital, and considered to be the man behind her social media successes. (https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/conservative-leadership-race-campaign-teams-social-media-comms-special-advisors-lizz-truss-rishi-sunak-b1013495.html). By the way, MrsSnoozyTurtle, his surname is Solomon, not Soloman.Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's gotten his name in media enough times, but there is hardly anything about him as a person. Talking to media and being the subject of a media piece are two different things. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To reiterate, Reuben Solomon has been featured in multiple major and respected publications such as The BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Evening Standard, Politico and PR Week, which highlight his significant, widely recognized and occasionally controversial contributions to the political and digital spheres in the United Kingdom.

The coverage in these reputable sources aligns completely with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies, specifically WP:NBIO, which requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Given the numerous reliable and independent sources acknowledging his prominence in political advisory and digital media strategy, Reuben Solomon clearly meets the criteria for a standalone Wikipedia article, and as such, the article should be retained.Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think everyone agrees that he is mentioned and is in Media. Obviously, if someone is notable is in media and especially all reliable sources. This is in the UK only therefore it's like this because in UK politics he is notable.B&W penguin (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The detractors’ reasons for deletion seem to have become more irrelevant with each passing comment. Is there perhaps just a little hint of something else in their intent?ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Featured in the publications doesn't equal notability. He's always mentioned in connection with some government thing/talking point, there is very little about him as a person, or that discusses him at length. He's a civil servant that is good at PR work. Not terribly notable outside of that context. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with User:Oaktree b on this - the fellow is (was?) in a non-elected position in the UK government, so his name appears from time to time in the newspaper. None of the articles are about him, one may hint at him but doesn't even name him, and the remainder are mentions in articles about someone or something else. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . This has gone on long enough. One could even question the motives of the original AfD. There are so many articles on Wikipedia similar to this one that don't get the same attention. Why was this one singled out? There are many references in this discussion that repudiate the latest contribution. Using words like "the fellow is (was?)" , "name appears from time to time", "None of the articles are about him, one may hint at him", "the remainder are mentions in articles about someone or something else" are just not true! There's a saying in Yiddish: "Mentsh vas hat nisht lib yidn zenen vi termitn - zey lebn ineveynik aun itst aun dan kumen aoys fun di holts"ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZogNitKeynmol, which independent sources do you believe provide the in-depth coverage needed to prove notability? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There are so many articles on Wikipedia similar to this one that don't get the same attention." See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62238068; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/27/how-liz-truss-plundered-best-westminster-wonkland-take-rishi/; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/03/grassroots-facebook-brexit-ads-secretly-run-by-staff-of-lynton-crosby-firm; https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/28/content-creating-over-policy-making-the-next-instagram-prime-minister/; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-trusss-blueprint-for-her-first-month-as-prime-minister-hlggwh27x; (https://www.politico.eu/article/how-liz-truss-did-it/; https://www.prweek.com/article/1798063/liz-truss-plan-no-10-comms; https://www.prweek.com/article/1798129/team-truss-taking-shape-raft-comms-hires; (https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/conservative-leadership-race-campaign-teams-social-media-comms-special-advisors-lizz-truss-rishi-sunak-b1013495.html ZogNitKeynmol (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Piyo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, not here to waste people's time at AfD.
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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prasun Kumar[edit]

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

PROMO PUFF piece with lot of weasel words and conferred notability ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Leader of a youth thing and a covid liberator are not notable, I'm not even sure what either of those is. Delete for not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the available news articles and the subject's work, I found this topic noteworthy. Passes WP:GNG. GM Nova (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it meet notability guidelines though? That's what we're discussing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed, and changed my vote to Delete. For now the person is not notable and does not meet WP:NPOL. GM Nova (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under any of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability criteria, but the depth and volume of referencing is nowhere near what it would take to earn him notability of the "media coverage exists = WP:GNG pass" variety (which is not just automatically extended to just everybody who can show a small handful of local-interest coverage in run of the mill contexts). Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO per above. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  21:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The March 2023 NDTV piece is clearly SIGCOV and contains multiple paragrahps about the subject's role in the emergence of a state party with national implications and provides details of his personal history. However, the pieces in Hindi and Telegu are essentially rehashes of the NDTV article and the piece on COVID appears to be churnalism with a tag indicating the site assumes no responsibility for content. My searches find no further sources that would lead to passing the GNG threshold. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vettuva Gounder[edit]

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

Does this caste exist? Perhaps. There is sourcing to show that they are a "backward class". Currently, only one of the sources mentions them (although I cannot read the #5 ref), #1 and #2 are the same ref, and both simply mention the backward class in a list, with zero additional information. Refs #3 and #4 do not even mention the class. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage, so fails WP:GNG could be redirected to Gounder, but the redirect was challenged. Onel5969 TT me 10:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 22 April 2023 (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 WP:SNOW keep‎ . This is one of several AFDs with extremely similar rationales created by the same editor in quick succession after what appears to have been content disputes with no attempt to resolve outside of AFD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C[edit]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft without improvement and with zero in-depth independent sources. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 22 April 2023 (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 WP:SNOW keep‎ . This is one of several AFDs with extremely similar rationales created by the same editor in quick succession after what appears to have been content disputes with no attempt to resolve outside of AFD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D[edit]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft without improvement and with zero in-depth independent sources. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep There are several things that make this nomination wrong:
  1. Numbered list item
  2. The nomination fails WP:NEXIST where that the basis seems to be based on the current sourcing in the article rather than how it could be improved.
  3. The individual groups easily pass GNG with recent media coverage such at this and this.
  4. Having a separate AFD for each group is a waste of everyone's time. There should be one AFD following WP:MULTIAFD.
  5. This is a bog-standard sub-page of 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup, that we all know will exist when the tournament starts - only 8 weeks until the group stage - and 6 or so until the preliminaries.
  6. The same page for an equivalent tournament - 2019 Copa América Group A was created 5 months ahead of time. I'm sure I could find even earlier. Sure, OTHERSTUFF - but this is utterly routine. Good grief, if one really feels strongly, nominate one, and see how it goes.
  7. User:onel5969 has made several other recent FOOTY AFDs that are snowing keep, and are just absurd - such as 2023–24 EFL League One and even the top Italian league at 2023–24 Serie A (which has just been closed as a SNOW KEEP by User:Jkudlick with an admonishment to the creator.
  8. User:onel5969 has created these, but then even when asked to participate in the discussion, ignores them. I have to feel these are not good faith nominations. Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. How is this not WP:Disruptive editing? Am I the only person who'd support a topic ban on AFD creation?
Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2023 (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 WP:SNOW keep‎ . This is one of several AFDs with extremely similar rationales created by the same editor in quick succession after what appears to have been content disputes with no attempt to resolve outside of AFD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B[edit]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft without improvement and with zero in-depth independent sources. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 22 April 2023 (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 WP:SNOW keep‎ . This is one of several AFDs with extremely similar rationales created by the same editor in quick succession after what appears to have been content disputes with no attempt to resolve outside of AFD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A[edit]

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft without improvement and with zero in-depth independent sources. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Jamaica, Nicaragua, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep matches have been announced by CONCACAF and is a major tournamentTomrtn (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is effectively a sub-page of 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup which is clearly notable. I don't see the utility of merging this into its parent only to split it back out in 2 months when the games are played. BLAIXX 22:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure we need separate articles for each group, but that is how the 2019 articles are structured. And with the tournament in 2 months and match locations announced, it's not too soon to have this in mainspace. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A subpage of 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup which is an international tournament and is clearly notable. Quite standard to set these pages up in advance of the tournament that starts in just over a month. Another bad nomination by Onel5969 who seems determined to waste everybody's time with redundant nominations (and in this case setting up 4 AfDs for the same thing). --SuperJew (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete, all is announced. It starts in two months, so not too soon for me. Kante4 (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pointless to delete it at this stage. This is a significant international tournament and this will certainly receive extensive coverage. There already is coverage on the draw and venue. --Mvqr (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2023 (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. I don't personally like this result, but consensus here is quite clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Twitch channels[edit]

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

Possibly violates WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are only two sources in the article, and both are routine data collections. From looking at a Google search, there doesn't seem to be much non-routine coverage of the most followed Twitch channels from secondary sources.

See also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-liked TikTok videos

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists

123957a (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlike, say, a List of tallest mountains, this is likely to change every month if not every day and requires undue effort to keep updated. Wikipedia is not a news site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is likely to be in a constant state of flux, and is more suited for a news site or suchlike, not a Wikipedia article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some content can be mentioned on main article though. Azuredivay (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nigh impossible to maintain per above, and not even the only measure of a channel's popularity -- you might as well list most subscribers, etc. (Also, while this isn't a rationale for deletion exactly, it is probably a magnet for self-promotion.)
Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listing the most popular of anything and linking to their articles, is a valid navigational list. Every article for a movie, album, game, etc, list the sales figures, and this information is outdated weekly the first months after it comes out. The infoboxes for business list a company's revenue, that information outdated every month. Being outdated is not a valid reason to delete information, and certainly not an entire list. You list when the last time the information was updated at the top, and its fine. Dream Focus 21:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not indiscriminate for Wikipedia to keep—it lists the top 50 (not say, 500), so has a focus and a purpose. "Requires undue effort to keep updated", "nigh impossible to maintain"—it's not hard to keep maintained at all. There are editors who will come along and do this, and per Dream Focus above, it has a date for when it was last updated anyway. The sourcing could be better, but I don't see that as a reason to delete here because what are the most-followed Twitch channels do get news coverage, so I believe the sources are out there. Ss112 12:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too hard to maintain, and "most-followed Twitch channels" is not a notable topic, so it also fails LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could perhaps move to "notable Twitch channels", with proper sourcing. Otherwise, nothing we can use here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is the subscriber numbers aren't audited, can be bought and can be boosted using bots. We keeps lists of popular songs, popular movies, most subscribed-to newspapers as we have results that are audited/certified using reliable methods. The fact that you can pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars and buy fake likes and follows means we can't use these numbers as proof of "popularity". Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not WP:JDLI? That people shouldn't pay attention to them doesn't mean they don't. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do like them, I'm explaining why we don't count number of subs for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll disagree that this is too hard to maintain (or that "it's too hard to maintain [a list of 50]") is a good reason to delete. Just create a standard for the page to, say, update it once a month or something. There are plenty of easy editorial decisions to manage it, and plenty of other similar lists. Meanwhile, it's a list of the most popular accounts on the most popular streaming platform in the world, so of course there are sources to meet NLIST (just on the first page of google results there's Sports Illustrated, USA Today, GameRant, Forbes India, Espots News, The Loadout, and Insider. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable, and of questionable notability as a concept. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable, and "most-followed Twitch channels" fails WP:LISTN.  // Timothy :: talk  14:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list being "unmaintainable" is not only surmountable per WP:OUTDATED but it also describes almost all Wikipedia articles, since most things, people, and places with Wikipedia articles and/or our knowledge of them are changing constantly; the whole point is that editors are expected to update them if they so choose, and, based on the consistent updates to lists of the same ilk, the fear of this being "unmaintainable" is baseless. Per Rhododendrites, it passes WP:LISTN. benǝʇᴉɯ 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not to support either side on this proposal, but if this list is on consideration for deletion due to maintaining difficulty, should these lists also not be considered as well? They're practically the same thing, just on other social media platforms.
List of most-followed Instagram accounts
List of most-followed TikTok accounts
List of most-followed Facebook pages
List of most-subscribed YouTube channels B3251 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lists mentioned above have no problem staying up to date, while would this article be any different? Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:COMMONSENSE Useful list that receives over 30,000 monthly views. None of the arguments rely on policy and lists like this (most-followed Instagram accounts, most subscribed YouTube channels.. etc.) exist and should not be deleted because they are "hard to maintain". As for the notability question, here are a bunch of reliable sources showing interest in the most-followed Twitch channels: NME BBC, New Yorker. If anyone wanted to illustrate how out of touch Wikipedia editors are, this deletion discussion would be perfect. Cheers! :Célestin Denis (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Lists like this" part of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I do not believe anyone wants to update this, leaving it practically useless. Pageviews are also not a valid argument for keeping an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: You don't "believe anyone wants to update this"? Then why have there been over 50 edits to the article since the start of this year, most of which are adjustments to the follower counts? Ss112 12:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. It's not that hard to keep up to date, and more generally, it doesn't even need to be - we cover stuff like old census data or what critics thought the best movies of 1976 are. Think WP:10YEARTEST - would it be reasonable to cover the hottest social media trends of 2013? Absolutely, see stuff like Harlem Shake (meme). So even if this list goes out of date, it may still be worthwhile. Twitch streamers & Twitch are certainly newsworthy & notable enough. SnowFire (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that ITSUSEFUL, ILIKEIT, and OTHERSTUFF are all considered to be poor arguments. I would like to also see a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources given, neither of which seem particularly notable. I can't find any additional sourcing in RS that discuss notable streamers for this platform. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, I went and added some sources to the list that are more solid. It is challenging to find sources with some of the names but I gave it a shot. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts & List of most-followed TikTok accounts so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a useful jumping off point for readers who are interested in learning more about streamers on Twitch. I think this is unique in that Streaming can be a little complicated if you have no idea or frame of reference about it. There are numerous other lists which have shown to be at least somewhat useful and have not been removed, this list is also at least that useful. I've gone though and added sources to support the list. One problem I saw was streamers who are listed there but don't have an article about them here. For almost all of those cases I found sources to support who they were, their name, and that they steam on Twitch. I was able to find newspaper articles to support some of the streamers which I found valuable. To bring this list in line with the general style of other similar lists I added a column for county. In cases where the streamer moved/moves between two places I added a source to support that. This was a lot harder for the last few entries on the list and I wouldn't oppose cutting that number down a bit. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, I'll do a partial source analysis tomorrow if this is still up. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just wanted to give a short update. I've made more improvements to the article but didn't get around to do the analysis of the sources. That's on me, I just went down a rabbit hole and got tired so I took my partner out for lunch. If this is still open tomorrow I'll try my best to get that (abridged) analysis done. Normally this isn't that much work for me but in this case there are 50 people with sources in multiple language I have to go though. It's not an excuse just an explanation of the bumps in the road I've experienced. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Analysis of Sources: List of most-followed Twitch channels by Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝)

At the start of this AfD this page had two sources, it now has eighty five. As a result I'm not going to go over every source but I'll go over the "best", the "worst", generally good sources, and some important articles.. I identified these sources using the CiteHighlighter script by Novem Linguae, WikiProject Video games, New page patrol source guide, Newspaper of record, and WP:RSP. Since this is a list the sources are almost all used to just verify a fact such as a streamers name, the game they play, and their location. A few explain what twitch is, and a couple explain why a streamer is no longer streaming on Twitch. This might not be complete, there might be mistakes, I did my best.

Generally reliable

Source for determining reliability

WikiProject Video games


New page patrol source guide

  • BBC News
  • ESPN
  • Sports Illustrated
  • New Musical Express (NME)
  • The Hollywood Reporter
  • Variety
  • Los Angeles Times
  • Washington Post
  • Associated Press
  • Bloomberg

Newspaper of record

  • Los Angeles Times
  • Washington Post

Marginally reliable or no consensus

New page patrol source guide

  • CNBC WP:NEWSORG but concerns have been raised about their promotion of non-notable crypto.
    • This source is used once to establish a streamers name.
  • Daily Mirror (Tabloid)
    • This source is used once to establish a streamers name and the game they best known for streaming.


Generally unreliable, deprecated, or blacklisted

  • Twitter as per WP:USERGENERATED and WP:RSPTWITTER this source is generally unacceptable for use.
    • This source is used once in a pair of references to note that a streamer is no longer streaming on Twitch. The streamer that this is used for is Harley Fresh (Fresh), he is low on the list ranked 45th most followed on Twitch. The combination of being low on the list and located in Australia result in him not having a lot of press coverage. If he were located in Europe or the Americas this would not have been a problem. Twitter should never be used for any claim of a third party person and this tweet came from Fresh and was about himself.

WikiProject Video games and New page patrol source guide

  • Dexerto has poor editorial control and is known to have errors in reporting. In a RfC on this source it was decided to not deprecast it.
    • This source is used once to support the previous tweet by Fresh and is the best secondary source about that tweet.

Sources that are generally fine

Sources that are generally fine

Books

  • Fletcher, Gordon; Adolphus, Noel (2022). Creating a successful digital presence : objectives, strategies and tactics. Noel Adolphus. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis
    • Book published by an academic publisher that notes that Pokimane is the most popular female streamer.
  • Furgang, Adam (2019). Saidian, Siyavush (ed.). Tyler Ninja Blevins : Twitch's Top Streamer with 11 Million+ Followers (1st ed.). New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-7253-4602-4.
    • Book published about Ninja and that he is the most followed streamer on Twitch. Checked the publisher and this is a real publishing house and not a self-publishing service.

Peer Reviewed Articles

  • Thorne, Sarah (January 29, 2023). Murray, Brittany (ed.). "#Emotional: Exploitation & Burnout in Creator Culture". CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. Purdue University Press. 24 (4). doi:10.7771/1481-4374.4088
    • Peer reviewed article that notes Ninja is the most popular male streamer.
  • Sjöblom, Max; Törhönen, Maria; Hamari, Juho; Macey, Joseph (2019). "The ingredients of Twitch streaming: Affordances of game streams". Computers in Human Behavior. 92: 20–28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.012
    • Peer reviewed article that notes Twitch is a live streaming platform and includes an analysis of the social functions of a group of streamers.

Local and National Newspapers.

  • Krishnan, Joe (January 25, 2019). "Gaming Twitch Stars are Gaming's A-List". Evening Standard. London, Greater London, England. pp. A54.
  • Perugini, Nicholas (August 15, 2019). "Local Gamer Wins Big: Teen Plays in Fortnite World Cup". Town Times News. Southbury, Connecticut.
  • Hegarty, Aaron (October 14, 2018). "Omaha gamer DrLupo plays 'Fornite', meets about 400 fans at Nebraska Furniture Mart". Omaha World-Herald. Omaha, Nebraska. p. 22
  • Cifuentes, Nora (October 10, 2020). "Cuando ser un impostor esta de moda". El Nuevo Herald. pp. A5
  • Saad, Nardine (October 3, 2022). "Popular YouTuber and 'Minecraft' gamer Dream reveals his face to followers". Los Angeles Times.
  • Twitch star DrLupo signs exclusive YouTube deal, now 'secure for life'". Washington Post.
  • Harwell, Drew (December 2, 2021). "Up all night with a Twitch millionaire: The loneliness and rage of the Internet's new rock stars". Washington Post.


Stories in newspapers that are reprints from syndicated news services or another news paper.

  • Drake, 'Ninja' play 'Fortnite' break a record". Fresno Bee. Associated Press. March 17, 2018. pp. B8
  • Kharif, Olga (May 13, 2021). "Female streamers are conquering Twitch". Valley News. West Lebanon, New Hampshire. Bloomberg.
  • Browning, Kellen; Hill, Kashmir (July 31, 2022). "A hidden price of fame". Citizens' Voice. New York Times. pp. A14
  • Amenabar, Teddy; Lee, Jonathan (September 30, 2023). "'Fortnite' turns 5". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Washington Post.

Important Articles

Three streamers move to Andorra for tax reasons.

These articles were all in Spanish so I included a quote to support the claim and the translated quote in the reference

  • "Auronplay, youtuber residente en Andorra: "El socialismo me come el escroto"" [Auronplay, YouTuber living in Andorra: "Socialism eats my scrotum"]. El Plural (in Spanish). 2021-03-20. Archived from the original on December 7, 2021. Retrieved 2023-04-23. Además, hace tiempo decidió mudarse a Andorra para acogerse a una fiscalidad menos agresiva que en España y así pagar menos impuestos. [In addition, he decided a long time ago to move to Andorra to take advantage of less aggressive taxation than in Spain and thus pay less taxes.]
    • This newspaper labels itself as a progressive daily newspaper and has had connections with the socialist party in Catalonia. The coverage is brief but the source is only used to establish that the streamer Auronplay had moved to Andorra.
  • Muñoz, José David (2021-01-30). "El Rubius habla de las razones de su marcha a Andorra y responde al vicepresidente y a los que le han señalado" [Rubius talks about the reasons for his departure to Andorra and responds to the vice president and to those who have indicated him]. Hobbyconsolas (in Spanish). Archived from the original on May 21, 2022. Retrieved 2023-04-23. Hace unos días os comunicábamos la decisión que había dictaminado como pública el famoso y conocido YouTuber El Rubius, la cosa era bien sencilla: El Rubius se muda a Andorra y se une a la larga lista de youtubers que instalan su residencia en el país. [A few days ago we informed you of the decision that the famous and well-known YouTuber El Rubius had ruled as public , the thing was very simple: El Rubius moves to Andorra and joins the long list of youtubers who take up residence in the country ]
  • "De Olavarría a Andorra: Robleis, el youtuber y cantante que se convirtió en fenómeno" [From Olavarría to Andorra: Robleis, the YouTuber and singer who became a phenomenon]. Todo Noticias (in Spanish). 2022-12-10. Archived from the original on February 9, 2023. Retrieved 2023-04-23. cosecha más de 17 millones de suscriptores y se fue a vivir, como buena parte de sus ídolos, a Andorra. [currently, he has more than 17 million subscribers and went to live, like many of his idols, in Andorra.]
    • Argentinian news channel, source is only used to establish the streamers move to Andorra.

Two streamers born in Mexico now stream in the United States.

These two articles were only used to support the location of the streamer as they have streamed in both places.

Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what the above shows is that this list fails LISTN, and the idea of "most followed" is a highly fluctuating target. Wikipedia is not a Twitch leaderboard.  // Timothy :: talk  21:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following what you mean by the above list shows that this article fails WP:LISTN @TimothyBlue, if you could lay it out a little more for me I would appreciate it. Here is how I'm seeing things and if I'm wrong or off base please let me know, I promise I'm not being a jerk or am being sarcastic. According to the sources in the article the list is notable based on multiple sources including newspaper articles, peer reviewed journal articles, and online news providers. Because the topic is notable everyone that is listed in the article does not have to be independently notable. At least that's what I think it says in WP:LISTN.
    I get that the topic of "lists of most XYZ" is a polarizing topic in AfD. It's one of the more interesting aspects of consensus in AfD, since we have to do these sort of articles on a case by case basis you get a patchwork of decisions. I've noticed some push back at AfD when articles are nominated here that cover streamers. It's a topic that is a little newer and harder to always establish notability for reliable sources, trust me I just hunted for sources for this article and it wasn't super easy.
    Lets just go over some of the "lists of most XYZ" that have been in AfD.
     
    So lets ask some questions about this article
    • Does List of most-followed Twitch channels pass WP:LISTN?
      • Yes, we have multiple sources which would pass WP:GNG that make note of the importance that this has in the general public. Multiple types of sources, in depth reporting over a long period of time, and across multiple languages and cultures all support this list as being notable.
    • Does the fluctuating nature of the List of most-followed Twitch channels article raise a concern about it's maintenance or notability?
      • No, lists of things change we have already established that both most-subscribed and most-viewed YouTube channels are notable even in the face of fluctuating numbers. WP:UPTODAT isn't a good argument here, this is Wikipedia if something is out of date just fix it. If this is a serious issue that the community is concerned with we can just ask for someone to write a bot to update it every now and then.
    • Does the List of most-followed Twitch channels article have a standard metric for establishing most-followed?
      • Yes, unlike in the AfD for List of most prolific porn stars we have a metric which is quantifiable, stable, and verifiable. Just like YouTube.
    • Does the List of most-followed Twitch channels article compare followers across different platforms or groupings?
      • No, unlike in the AfD for List of most played video games by player count we see that the list is only listing followers from one platform where a follower is equal for all streamers on the platform. In practice this means that the value of one follower is always one follower, being a paying follower does not give that streamer ten followers etc.
     
    That's at least how I'm seeing this AfD and article. I see a lot of parallels with the AfDs for the YouTube and Twitter lists. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS don't work. Not every Twitch channel can pass the notability. CastJared (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In WP:LISTN it says lays it down fairly clearly that "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." so just because some of the entries on the list would not have enough sources to be notable does not make the list not notable.
    Let's use a few examples to establish that this list is notable and lets not use the sources that are in the article. Here are two that I liked from Newspapers.com an article in the Ottawa Citizen talking about some of the top chess streamers on Twitch and a local paper talking about the top streamers in North Carolina. Both articles talk about followers and that in their niche (Chess, North Carolina) they are the top streamers. The topic of "List of most-followed Twitch channels" is notable and subdividing into smaller groups will most likely also be notable. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, in my previous post I was pointing out the evolution of lists like this where the first time similar lists are brought to AfD they don't hit consensus and then later at another AfD they are kept. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT are both irrelevant, based on the notability guidelines and sources provided the list holds up on it's own.
    Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AfD is not a vote. Has anyone here actually evaluated the multiple sources provided which give significant coverage to the topic "as a group or set" before expressing this argument that it fails WP:NLIST? Seems most of the people voting delete here have yet to do a thorough examination of the sources Dr. Vulpes cited, and are still claiming that the keep votes are merely voting so because "they like it" or "other stuff exists". So far I have yet to see anyone actually refute that the sources provided aren't reliable and/or significant enough to make this topic pass the guidelines. 2601:645:C57F:FD80:E825:8167:505A:397 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm - WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work. Agreed. CastJared (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NLIST is well satisfied here. The concept of Twitch streamers and their number of followers clearly generate coverage and the WP:LSC appears to currently be the top 50 streamers which is unambiguous and suggests to me we don't need to be concerned with the notability of each individual streamer in the list. I don't think Dr. vulpes's analysis of previous similar AfDs is OSE in this case, since it's specifically looking at past AfDs for conceptually similar pages to see if there's broad consensus to keep pages like this, which it seems like there is. I think there are some issues with the page itself (linking to Twitch instead of Wikipedia pages in the table's first column, including people who no longer have Twitch channels which would seem like a disqualifier, etc), but the article is worth having. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and I'm not particularly thrilled to be here as this doesn't feel encyclopedic to me. But that's IDON'TLIKEIT; the sourcing is perfectly fine to support the relative rankings on the list members, and there are ample references to "one of the most popular channels on Twitch" as noted above, so I don't think NLIST is implicated. It legitimately can function as a navigational aid, so usefulness is a perfectly reasonable argument. Unless we uncover some good reason to believe Twitch is playing fast and loose with follower counts, and until we reach a sitewide consensus through an RfC on how to handle all of these types of lists, I think this one can stay.Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are the first few results of a quick web search: [20][21][22][23][24][25]. None are perfect, however it is enough to suggest to me that the topic has sufficient coverage. However, I am open to changing my !vote (or finding more sources, since these were just the first few) if most of these are found to be unreliable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Singh Naruka[edit]

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

Fails NPOL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has not held any office that would constitute an "inherent" notability claim under WP:NPOL #1, and the article is referenced nowhere near well enough to earn him a sourceability-based notability pass under WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. NPOL is a great guide to show the clearly notable, but in the great grey area of local pols and appointees, I think the BLP policy would defer to GNG and this article does not have the sources to pass GNG. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). BLP is policy, and has priority over the other BIO SNGs (including NPOL) which are guidelines and essays. // Timothy :: talk  21:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Musical: Welcome to the Night of Your Life[edit]

The Musical: Welcome to the Night of Your Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected a version of this article two days ago [26], and left a message for the creator User:Dhiego Allvez. They didn't seem to understand what my point was or that the articles they create should meet WP:NALBUMS. While the group who made it is barely notable in English-speaking markets (most of their coverage, last I looked several years back when multiple editors including myself redirected most of their single articles, appears to be from Brazilian pop music blogs), I can find no worthwhile coverage of this album. Its two sources at present are Apple Music and some sort of NFT/blockchain community the album was originally released on. Plainly not notable. Ss112 14:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect. I found this article which explains the NFT connection, but that's all, and that article looks like an opinion piece with an explicit conflict of interest disclosure so I wouldn't necessarily call it definitely reliable. And if that's all the coverage this has gotten then it's easily non-notable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Author can continue improving an earlier attempt to create the article which was draftified last month: Draft:The Musical: Welcome to the Night of Your Life. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NALBUM, no sources in the article or BEFORE meet IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Title is not a good redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  21:18, 27 April 2023 (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 Po-Shen Loh. ✗plicit 14:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOVID (app)[edit]

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

The creator of the ap Po-Shen Loh is notable, but the app itself has not received in depth coverage, except for research articles by the creator. After 3 years, and no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. I do not think this is notable. It certainly can/is already mentioned within the list of COVID-19 contact tracing apps ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attila Császár (footballer)[edit]

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

His professional football career lasted all of 44 mins and, in any case, WP:FPL is no longer the relevant standard. I am not seeing any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met. Best sources seem to be Csornai SE, which is not WP:RS, Dunaújváros, a mere squad list mention, and Papa ma, which is trivial match report coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. You have to acknowledge when you nominated incorrectly. I am persuaded by the keep arguments and NPOL notability. (non-admin closure)‎ ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Kihalani Springer[edit]

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

Does not reach GNG. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*I added a notification to this discussion at WT:IPNA CT55555(talk) 15:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) *:And Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania CT55555(talk) 17:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* I added a notification re: this discussion at WT:WikiProject Hawaii. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep Nomination is a misfire. This woman has served as advisor and etc. on many projects and boards of Hawaii. Also a former trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, The Nature Conservancy Hawai‘i and present trustee of Hawaii Preparatory Academy.1 and she sits on the Board of Directors on the Akaka Foundation for Tropical Forests, alongside other formidable public figures in Hawaii.2 They don't put "Does not reach GNG" people on these boards. They place formidable accomplished people who can work within the power structures to get things done. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was elected as a trustee to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which is a statewide office, so she has some WP:NPOL notability, in addition to what appears to be WP:BASIC notability as an advocate, speaker, and writer. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the reasoning of Beccaynr. CT55555(talk) 04:27, 25 April 2023 (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 Isola (album). There is consensus to redirect. I considered another relist since no one commented on the sources added back on April 15th, but frankly, they didn't look particularly promising. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saker man ser[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (the single) directly and indepth. No objection to a consensus redirect to the album Isola, similar redirects have been rv'd so establishing CONSENSUS needed.  // Timothy :: talk  01:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It reached #22 in the Swedish charts, according to Swedish wiki, which doesn't make it sound terribly notable. I think a redirect with merge of anything rescuable from the article would make sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains information that cannot be found on Isola and the song reached #22 in the Swedish charts. If the problem is that is reached #22, how about, for example, this R.E.M. single "Oh My Heart" which reached #37 as the highest. Slagmannen924 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, despite it being a blatant WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it is possible that you have a point and "Oh My Heart" is also non-notable despite charting in multiple countries. Someone should look into that. The problem, though, is that the closest thing to valuable information here which isn't charting is that Hayley Williams likes the song. That's pretty trivial all told, but if you really want to then that can easily be added to Isola, as can the chart. This song, on the other hand, seems very limited in coverage. Unless any of these four sources [27][28][29][30] (all behind paywalls) contain more than passing mentions then I can't find anything and this is an easy redirect to Isola. I've asked on WP:DISCORD for assistance and will update if anything comes through, but in the meantime this can be redirected anyway and restored later if anything else comes up. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the closest thing to valuable information are that Hayley Williams likes the song is not very serious. One have the track listing both of the Swedish and English version, information about b-sides, the song charted at number 22 in Sweden, pic of the cover, link to the music video and more. Slagmannen924 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More sources added to the article. Slagmannen924 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 out of 7 of the sources are independent/reliable in my opinion. Keep. Slagmannen924 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2023 (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 Carolina Hurricanes. Contributors are encouraged to incorporate the content into the target. ✗plicit 14:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shock at the Rock[edit]

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

An individual National Hockey League playoffs game which does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I found only one reliable source which refers to the game as "Shock at the Rock", which was written by a journalist who follows the team, rather than a widespread name for the game. When this article was in draft space, its merit was debated here. Consensus then did not appear to be in favour of this article, and I have found no new research to support it passing GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Ice hockey, and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely routine game summary and coverage, no indication of substantial or lasting significance. Reywas92Talk 13:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Good grief, this is just another playoff game (in a preliminary round yet), and the number of unremarkable playoff games where a team's scored two goals in the final minutes to pull it out has to number in the hundreds at least, and this wouldn't be article-worthy if it had been the deciding game of the Cup Finals. Fails WP:ROUTINE going away. Ravenswing 20:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Although I found two articles through a general Google search, including one with NBC Sports, I still do not find that this is worthy of its own article based on notability. Rather, this content would work best as a section in the Carolina Hurricanes article. As it is already mentioned in that article, a redirect makes the most sense. Rublamb (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Carolina Hurricanes or another suitable target (maybe the season article): redirects are WP:CHEAP and preserve the page history better. I had accepted this AfC submission because I thought the references established notability but now I realise that sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage more than WP:SIGCOV. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, routine game summary and coverage, no indication of substantial or lasting significance. Fails GNG and NEVENT.  // Timothy :: talk  21:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There was consensus that the sourcing was inadequate to demonstrate notability. I did consider WP:MUSICBIO, but the sourcing available did not indicate such clear applicability to override the arguments to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagher Moazen[edit]

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

Looks promotional, couldn't find proper sources for him. Ladsgroupoverleg 11:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It would seem that he meets at least 3 criteria from WP:MUSICBIO. he meets criterion 4 (multiple tours/concerts with coverage), 7 (prominent musician from Iran) and 9 (Got gold medal in Iran).Royal88888 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have to say this is the best developed G11 i've seen. I almost hate to delete it being so perfect, but it is a BLP, and fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahmed Bello[edit]

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

“ Special Adviser, Media and Publicity” to a state governor isn’t a role that confers notability. A distinguished career in journalism might do, but I’m not seeing the sources that would support that. Mccapra (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per G11 and WP:BLP.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 13:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Angolan general election[edit]

2027 Angolan general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While national elections are notable, this one is a case of WP:TOOSOON, as there is currently no in-depth coverage on the subject. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 22 April 2023 (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 Aromanticism. History is under the redirect Star Mississippi 19:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy[edit]

Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary independent sources found in BEFORE check. Being involved with Aromantic Week does not confer/inherit notability to the organization itself. I am incredibly sympathetic to this orgs' cause, but see this as case of WP:TOOSOON. Worth reading WP:ADVOCACY too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: The organization is the face of Aromanticism (the A in LGBTQIA+, alongside asexual and agender) to the general public.
There are a series of books (1 2 3 4 5 that have been published recently (many within the last few months) that all reference to AUREA for information on Aromanticism. Thanks to your prompt I also realized the ommission that the organization was approached by Jessica Kingsley Publishers to commission a book about aromanticism, which is in the works (I've added a note to the effect to the article now).
They have also been cited in more recent scientific journals such as this recent journal article published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies,[1] which highlights that Aromanticism is "Too often dismissively framed as "new" identities arising out of nowhere".
This information being more widely available has been a significant factor to combat LGBT erasure#Aromantic erasure that happens around it and AUREA has been at the center of it.
On the news front, there are some (few yet, I give you that) secondary independent sources, such as an article in the Cosmopolitan and Seventeen magazine.
There are also various psychology help sites that point to AUREA for more information on aromanticism such as psychcentral.com and many interviews internationally pointing there such as SWLondoner or newsweek and LGBTQIA+ organizations such as PFLAG, Seattle Pride and various university LGBTQ organizations all pointing to AUREA for resources on Aromanticism such as pflag.org, Seattle Pride or Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society.
They are also not just involved with Aromantic Spectrum Awareness week, they are the leading organizer. I've updated the article to make this more clear and in lieu of ASAW being its own article, but already recognized and with WP:LASTING effect for the aromantic community in LGBTQIA+ awareness and inclusion, I've made it a main section on the article until someone may decide in the future to WP:SPLIT it out into its own article.
I believe all of this amounts to enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Raladic (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more international online media/magazines I found referencing the organization: Women's Health Magazine, Psychology Today, Magdalene from Indonesia, Diva from Slovakia, Philippine Daily Inquirer.
These references, along with the ones I already outlined above all refer to the organization as the sourcing/referencing about aromanticism, it's not just a mere trivial mention and under WP:SIGCOV, it doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material.
And refuting the point of Walt Yoder below, WP:ARTICLEAGE is an invalid argument to make in AfD and the article is written neutrally with all texts cited and referenced and not promotional, which in any case would be addressed through copy-editing, not deletion.
So just because a topic is newer and may be a minority point, doesn't mean that it is not notable perWP:WNIN. This is something which WP:PRIDE and WP:CSB tries to address to overcome the limited WP:WORLDVIEW around minority topics and the Wikimedia foundation specifically called out to promote inclusion on Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since it doesn't look like there's a clear consensus, but the suggestion from two users below to merge it into Aromanticism.
If the reviewing admin comes to that conclusion rather than keep based on the sources I've found above, the I'd like to request the outcome be merge and redirect per WP:INSTEAD please. Raladic (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is primary or related to the organization. The books mentioned appear to be related to them, being mentioned by Seattle Pride doesn't make them notable. Cosmopolitan is a start, but coverage is trivial. Being a lead organizer of the Awareness Week is a primary source. There is no SIGCOV of the organization, so we can't establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the books are also trivial mentions, or directory listings. Neither of which contributes to notability. I'm sure they do good work, but they aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is recently created and blatantly promotional. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete lack of sourcing, nothing found in RS that discuss them at length. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Przybyło, E. (2022). "Ace and aro lesbian art and theory with Agnes Martin and Yayoi Kusama". Journal of Lesbian Studies. 26: 89–112. doi:10.1080/10894160.2021.1958732.
  • Delete Add some info to the Aromanticism article if it fits in. There isn't enough about this organization (yet) for an encyclopedia page. I can't tell if the organization is formally incorporated (no mention of that) and it looks like the organization does not have staff, only volunteers. It's only a few years old so perhaps it needs more time. Lamona (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, you mean your recommendation vote is to merge and redirect (WP:ATD-R) to Aromanticism instead, not delete yes? Raladic (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is enough info for a merge. The Aromanticism article has a sentence that lists this organization, but that sentence has no cite. I'm not yet convinced that there are sufficient sources to justify naming this organization in that article. A reliable third-party cite would be needed and i don't see one. So I'm still going with delete. The organization would best be listed as an external source on the Aromanticism page, since there are no possible citations. And we don't usually do redirects for external sources. Lamona (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the relevant citations that I sourced above in the AfD discussion to the Aromanticism page now.
I do find it a bit curious that no one in this AfD discussion has actually addressed the many additional sources I have found and linked above and just decided to ignore them as if they didn't exist.
They do exist, but at best they are mentions in articles about aromanticism, and some of the sources cited do not mention the organization at all. It takes more than just proving the existence of the organization - there have to be independent significant sources that are primarily about it. Those may come in the future but they are not here today. Also, one of those sources you added affirms that this is a volunteer organization, which is possibly a good start but may need to become more stable before it has the kind of impact that would produce sources. Lamona (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are secondary independent, like the Cosmopolitan article as User:Oaktree b conceded above and I believe also the international articles I found later on and the peer-reviewed Journal article that cites them for the history on Aromanticism and yes, some may be more primary but per WP:PRIMARY, they are allowed (as long as not used solely for the information, which I have not done here) if they state a fact that can be verified by an educated person with access to the source, which this is a case for. Raladic (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ContractZen[edit]

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

Non-notable, PROMO puffpiece ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NCOMPANY. Sources are unreliable. Notability is seemingly inherited from other companies incl. PwC and Ingram Micro. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsdesk and a Microsoft PR piece aren't RS nor helpful in establishing notability. The rest seem to tangentially mention this company. Agree with PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatantly promotional. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not seeing truly independent coverage even in Finnish sources. There's some hits, but it's all press releases etc. authored by the company itself. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: also didn't find much. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 11:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 A.C. Milan season[edit]

2023–24 A.C. Milan season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect with zero improvement and zero in-depth sources. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep
    Hi, probably is just a case of WP:TOOSOON, but is it worthy to remove now if, in just few days, new information will be available and then added and referenced? Actual season is about to end by May 2023, when info on new season will start to be avavilable. I would keep the page, maybe placing templates asking for new references/information to be added as soon as available. Keep also in mind that, in the same timespan, also other teams' 2023-24 season pages will start to appear... Riktetta (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upcoming season of one of the top leagues in Europe is for sure notable. Quite standard to set them up at this stage of the year prior to the beginning of the season. Another bad nomination by Onel5969, wasting everyone's time. --SuperJew (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another waste of time AfD, article will be needed. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SuperJew, and agree this is yet another flawed AFD from the same user. GiantSnowman 22:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure what lead to this nomination for this bog-standard subpage - which is at worst a week or two early. Nominator needs to stop these disruptive FOOTY nominations. I'm asking User:onel5969 to please withdraw it, so as not to waste any more time on it. Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balijhor[edit]

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

Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non-WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Source eval:
Comments Source
Launch promo 1. "New television show Balijhor to launch next month". The Times of India.
Routine entertainment news 2. ^ "Balijhor; Trina Saha, Koushik Roy and Indrasish Roy in the passionate tale of love withstanding the power of politics". Aaj Tak Bangla (in Bengali).
Routine entertainment news 3. ^ "Trina-Kaushik starrer Balijhor to replace Nabab Nandini will become Mithai's new opponent from 6th February" (in Bengali).
Routine entertainment promo 4. ^ "TRP: বালিঝড়কে হারিয়ে দিল মিঠাই! অনুরাগের ছোঁয়াকে কি টলাতে পারল জগদ্ধাত্রী?" (in Bengali).
BEFORE showed nothing taht meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  09:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the source table review above, nothing notable, a preview for the series doesn't help for notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2023 (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 05:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Coster[edit]

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

Perennially unsourced WP:BLP. The only vaguely reliable source I could find in a WP:BEFORE is this The Union story that I'm having trouble accessing, but even if it was excellent and detailed, one source is not sufficient for WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC. Google books doesn't show anything useful at least in the first pages.

Various (self-authored?) bios describe him as grammy awardee etc., but I can't substantiate these claims to any reliable source and suspect the claimed awards were not for him, specifically, but rather some affiliated person/group/project. I thus don't think WP:ANYBIO#1 is met.

The relevant SNG is WP:NMUSIC, which states at WP:BANDMEMBER: Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability.. WP:BANDMEMBER states articles such as this should be redirected, but I'm not seeing an obvious target. WP:NCOMPOSER similarly states that composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. Suggestions welcome. Ljleppan (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was unable to find anything outside of his own web site to back up the statements in the article. I tried to find his alleged grammy awards but could not - search on his name at grammy.com got me nothing. Everything else I find, and there is little of it, is not in significant or reliable sources. Lamona (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The opinions here are generally based in policy, and there is clearly good-faith disagreement over whether the provided sources constitute SIGCOV. However, we would not generally consider a college newspaper a reliable enough source to count toward GNG, and absent other reasons to down-weight opinions, the numerical tilt is enough to constitute consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Games on Tap Board Game Cafe[edit]

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. I could not find a single source that covers the article subject in depth. Current links are either promo-puff pieces or primary sources. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Games, and Business. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads as an advertisement written by a SPA. Reywas92Talk 13:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep [31] is clearly a reliable independent source focused on this store. It is in a college paper, but seems fine. [32], [33], [34] also all seem to be reliable, independent, and have non-trivial coverage. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as PROMO. I don't think the above sources are useful for notability, they're all local sources discussing the "thing", vaguely human interest/promo pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are local sources not allowed in this context? I don't see anything about that in the GNG. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:AUD. Local reviews for a local audience for generic local businesses are of limited use for notability. Reywas92Talk 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit. Meets WP:NORG. Local coverage for a local place is fine. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Board game café, which is mostly an inline list of board game cafes like this. A run-of-the-mill local business. And content like Games on Tap hosts a General Knowledge Trivia Night every Monday. is excessively promotional. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question at hand is if this meets our inclusion guidelines. Run-of-the-mill isn't relevant to those as far as I'm aware. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While local sources on local places are fine for verifiability, its highly debatable on whether they, by themselves, would be sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. But, I'd say that's besides the point in this case, because the sources would not be sufficient for passing the WP:GNG regardless. The one article from the college paper that is actually entirely about the establishment is, as stated by the nom, a promotional puff piece where the majority of the article is just quotes from the owner themselves talking about it in a promotional manner. The rest of the linked sources are generally just shorter versions of the same - either promotional pieces consisting of quotes from the owners, or general "this place will be opening soon" mentions that would not count as significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, and borderline spam. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Rorshacma, sources are mostly promotional content. Alan Islas (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's at least 3 good GNG references in there - one from an national outlet (CBC). The other two are local, but extensive - The Cord might be a bit too local, but the Waterloo Region article is good. Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another reference - at the danger of refbombing; from a Torstar paper. That covers 3 of the main Canada media corporations; Torstar, Postmedia, and CBC. From 2014 to 2018. Nfitz (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting the GNG. I agree the references are, in the main, local coverage, and it feels like a routine business. However, we have to follow the sourcing. Whatever the reason, the business has been written about repeatedly over the years by independent sources. There is enough the sourcing to correct the promotion spin, which does make this feel like a puff piece. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am totally unsatisfied that the coverage located by editors constitutes anything significant. The coverage provided is not sufficient as it does not address the topic directly and in detail. Short bursts of coverage which are really about board game cafes rather than this business specifically are not sufficient in my view. The references that do go into some detail are more routine announcements than anything meeting WP:SIGCOV. This is hardly the most egregious lack of coverage for an article, that's for sure. However it is at best a borderline keep. On balance I think deletion is appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think characterizing independent news sources as "announcements" is problematic. Can you be more specific about what sources you are categorizing this is way? Hobit (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for editing the article - otherwise we are violating [[WP:ATD-E]. Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2023 (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 . After sources were provided in the discussion, no one disputed the significance of those sources. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Youth Organization[edit]

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

The organisation does not meet the relevant notability criteria: it is not inherently notable (WP:ORGSIG), and the coverage (or lack thereof) in reliable sources fails the criteria at WP:SIRS. There is only one source provided in the article, and coverage in that is far from significant (see WP:ORGDEPTH), since the PYO is only ever mentioned in passing. I have not been able to attribute any notable activities or events to the group, so I would argue it is safe to say that the scope of their activities was minimal. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Politics. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not a difficult case, and WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been performed well here. The Sholaye movement had significant impact on Afghan politics and society, and is amply covered in academic literature. Here is a book wholly dedicated to the Sholaye movement, [35], with an edition in Italian as well. A few additional examples of how the group is covered in literature,
  • "The youth wing of Sho'la-yi Jawed, known as Sazman-i Jawanan-i Mutarraqi, the Progressive Youth Organization, was noted for its militancy and between 1963 and 1973 its members clashed violently with Islamists, pdpa supporters and state security organs."[1]
  • ""During a bitter ideological debate that arose between the Islamists and supporters of the pro-Beijing Sazman-e-Javana-e-Mutarqi (Progressive Youth Organization) known as Shula-e-Javid (Eternal Flame) on the campus of Kabul University in June 1972 , a bloody fight broke out which resulted in the death of Saidal Sukhandan , a well known member of the organization , and the injury of numerous others ."[2]
  • "Sazman - e - Demokratik- e - Nawin , the Neo - Democratic Organization of Afghanistan ( NDOA ) , was also founded in 1965. The organization stressed class struggle and revolu- tionary armed uprising as a means of ending class oppression and building a socialist society. A great number of women of both white- and blue - collar backgrounds supported the organization , and some even became active members."[3]
  • "Sazman - e - Jawanan - e - Mutaraqi , the Progressive Youth Organization or PYO that split into several factions in the mid - 1970s ( Akhgar , Paikar , Khurasan , Sazman - e - Azadi Bakhsh - e - Mardum - e - Afghanistan , People's Liberation Organization or SAMA , Sazman - e - Azadi - e - Afghanistan , Afghanistan Liberation Organization or ALO , and others ) advocated revolu- tionary armed struggle as the only means to bring fundamental political..."[4]
  • "...which was followed by formation of the Progressive Youth Organization (PYO), popularly known as Sholay-i Jawid, a year later. These two organisations became fierce rivals as proponents of the Soviet- and Chinese-style communisms in the country. From the outset, the PYO included a number included a number of prominent Hazaras in its leadership, placing it in a superior position in recruitment of Hazara intelligentsia."[5] --Soman (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jonathan L. Lee (8 March 2022). Afghanistan: A History from 1260 to the Present. Reaktion Books. p. 563. ISBN 978-1-78914-019-4.
  2. ^ Internationales Asien Forum. International quarterly for Asian studies · Volume 30. 1999. p.
  3. ^ Hafizullah Emadi (2002). Repression, Resistance, and Women in Afghanistan. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-275-97671-2.
  4. ^ Hafizullah Emadi (2005). Culture and Customs of Afghanistan. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-313-33089-6.
  5. ^ Niamatullah Ibrahimi (1 October 2017). The Hazaras and the Afghan State: Rebellion, Exclusion and the Struggle for Recognition. Oxford University Press. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-84904-980-1.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kaufmann[edit]

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

I cannot see significant coverage in reliable sources for this photographer. References are mainly credits for his work. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added one source, but I do not think it is reliable. Tacyarg (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budhiya (film)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NFILM. Sources in article are release promo and database. BEFORE showed more promo and database, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth.  // Timothy :: talk  08:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Message I left to evident no avail, on nom's TP a few minutes before he took the page to AFD (after I had removed the Prod tag from the page, that the same user had put 1 1/2 h after the page was created...):An expert should, in my view, establish if it's really the 1st FL in Bagheli before further action is taken on the page.— MY, OH, MY! 09:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fair question but it doesn't seem to be the case; this article mentions a Bagheli-language film from 2019. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an easy one to find sources for, since searching in Hindi returns a lot of results for Budhia Singh who is also the subject of a film. I didn't find any sources that aren't already in the article, which as the OP says are promotional in nature. !Voting delete for now, unless better sources can be found. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 22 April 2023 (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 . Per consensus from established editors. Linked below, but for visibility Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Olafrozen. Star Mississippi 19:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamal Hadiul[edit]


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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to independently verify claims made in the article, most of the refs are deadlinks (no luck with web archive). Couldn't find much for the subject with WP:BEFORE. KH-1 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    keep An earlier version of the article was in error which has now been corrected. The man has also worked as a music producer for notable Bangladeshi films and TV drama series. Haxmelo (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC) (Note: Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is one of the famous music producers of Bangladesh. I'm new to Wikipedia, so news citations for adding some blacklisted urls were showing dead links, so sorry. However, the mentioned person has also worked as a music producer in several Bangladeshi films. Olafrozen (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this page is overrun with SPAs and duplicate votes. Noone has made any argument on how the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am aware of the mentioned music producer. He was awarded as the best music producer of Bangladesh, having completed the soundtracks of popular drama series like Punorjonmo, Mohanagar. I fixed it by removing the deadlinked references from the page. Since it has importance, I request you to keep this article. Olafrozen (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. I'm also concerned about the SPAs that are showing up, it reeks of canvassing at the very least. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Do not express opinions based on personal conflicts. It is suitable for Wikipedia according to notability. This music producer fully fulfills the WP:MUSICBIO creation. Many of his news articles have been published in Bengali language You should know that after a certain period of time, some web articles can get pushed far down the search result. This does not mean that he will be inappropriate. MirRahmanMustafiz (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have concern. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fail WP:MUSICBIO. Subject did not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't think mediatcb.com, www.newsbangla24.com, www.thetoptens.com are reliable sources. deshrupantor.com seems promotional & bangla.bdnews24.com seems passing mentions. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olafrozen.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. My source eval:
Comments Source
This is from "China’s No. 1 Local Newswire in Press Release Distribution & Target Media Publication" 1.  "That's why singer Tamal Hadiul's pseudonym is Heemadrit". The China Box.
Name mentioned in list of other artists 2. ^ "ঈদে দুরন্ত টিভিতে ব্যান্ড শো 'দুরন্তপনা'". BD News 24 (in Bengali). Retrieved 20 April 2023.
This meets IS RS and is SIGCOV 3. ^ "তমালের ‌নতুন গান 'নজর'". News Bangla 24 (in Bengali). Retrieved 29 June 2022.
This meets IS RS and is very weak SIGCOV 4. ^ "আইচ সং থেকে তমালের ঈদের গান 'আকাশের বুকে'". দৈনিক সকালের বার্তা (in Bengali).
Top Ten list, not SIGCOV 5. ^ "Tamal is now in the top ten". Thetopten. Retrieved 17 January 2023.
Routine entertainment business news 6. ^ "Agreement between Tamal and Soundtek".
Basically a duplicate of above 7. ^ "নতুন পরিচয়ে এবার তমাল". দেশ রূপান্তর (in Bengali). Retrieved 1 July 2022.
Fails V, 404 8. ^ "রহস্য গল্পে তমালের তুমিও বিষাক্ত". The Daily Ittefaq (in Bengali). Retrieved 21 September 2022.
  • The above keep votes have not provided any sources to show notability.
  • BEFORE showed promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
  • This article has 1 and oneish sources and is very questionable. The guidelines defer to WP:BLP policy. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  22:37, 27 April 2023 (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 04:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Brazilians[edit]

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

This article has sources, but the encyclopedic value about documenting 200 people in a country of 214 million, and also stemming from a country with 100+ million inhabitants, it is incomprehensible to me. Three academic tutors are not the basis of an article either. The sources towards the end of the article largely support trivial information about food or a business venture that doesn't warrant its own article, together with a lack of something to make a dent in Brazilian society or the Vietnamese diaspora as a whole. Some of the word choices are frankly ridiculous as well, e.g. "a wave" of 10 people. Geschichte (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An extremely small diaspora with an estimated 200 permanent residents of Vietnamese ancestry in a country with over 200M does not need its own page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . North America1000 06:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moto Guzzi Quota[edit]

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

All 4 sources are advertisements. GNG is not established. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, and Technology. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. This important guideline is brought in the source in bold so will not miss it, yet overlooked in many nominations. Looking for potential sources, as NEXIST and BEFORE prescribe, it is clear that the Moto Guzzi Quota does pass the WP:GNG, as this motorcycle was reviewed by motor magazines around the world and has its own entry in several books. gidonb (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gidonb you are correct regarding the policies. If you can find 2 quality sources, that would establish notability. Can be English, Italian or any language. I only found the Cycle Magazine and other advertisement pieces. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and other advertisement pieces", "sources are advertisements"<-- why do some nominators still provide red herrings as a response and in the intro and continue focusing on references, rather than sources? References that do not support notability can have a VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTION supporting data in articles! There is absolutely no need to misuse these in delete discussions!!! gidonb (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can you please indicate where you see the ads on article? The reasoning for delete is patently false and inconsistent. Now in page there are 6 authoritative sources of the motorcycle sector both on paper and "virtual", and are neutral authoritative, and affordability. See note on pageand this There are sources of the time (late 90s early 2000s) and other more recent ones dating back to 2012, symptoms of the fact that despite the Guzzi Quota bike is no longer built, it is still remembered. See multiple citation on Google books [36] and the great attention given by the magazines of the time [37].5.91.150.80 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think the Cycle World and American Motorcyclist articles are promotional or unreliable (let alone "advertisements"), even at a superficial glance it is easy to see that two reviews contain some "down" tables highlighting the motorcycle shortcomings. Cavarrone 17:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about Cycle World magazine, but this review for example reads incredibly puffy and promotional to me, without being a serious nor serious review/publication. Same for this other Cycle World review. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About Cycle World, it was at the time of these articles the "the largest motorcycling magazine in the world". The first article says, among other things, "headlights prove inadequate", the motorcycle "perpetually dripped oil", and complaints about the "traverse-Vee" that "shook bolts loose and cracked the exaust headers". The other one ends with "Quota remains interesting, but not altogether appealing." I wonder how is this "incredibly puffy and promotional". --Cavarrone 19:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well sourced Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (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 Marukin Ramen. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

Kinboshi Ramen[edit]

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

Faips WP:GNG. Coverage seems to be very local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2023 (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 WP:SNOW keep‎ . This is one of several AFDs with extremely similar rationales created by the same editor in quick succession after what appears to have been content disputes with no attempt to resolve outside of AFD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2023–24 Serie A[edit]

2023–24 Serie A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect with zero in-depth coverage. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is a very poor nomination by User:onel5969. They have been here long enough to know that seasons for the biggest leagues in the world are notable. Not only that, but that even articles for each team in the biggest league in the world are notable. They should also be aware that selection of teams for the season is already well underway. Typically this article is created in early March this year. It's clear that no proper BEFORE was done, as there are ample sources out there. The argument that this is too soon, given we are long past when the article is usually created.
This too soon nomination is similar to WP:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Serie A, on March 4, 2020. And that was for a (Covid-delayed and questionable) September 19, 2020 kick-off. The 2023 kick-off is on August 20, 2023. That AFD was withdrawn by User:Nehme1499 in less than 3 days, as it was snowballing keep. Can you please, User:onel5969, withdraw this even worse nomination? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand what "currently does not meet WP:GNG" even means in this context. Even Onel5969 should concede we will have an article on this topic by the end of September. What specific event are we supposed to wait for? Walt Yoder (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Upcoming season of one of the top leagues in Europe is for sure notable. Quite standard to set them up at this stage of the year prior to the beginning of the season. Honestly, this is quite a bad nomination and a waste of everyone's time. --SuperJew (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitively, for all above already explained reasons and for those I personally listed in similar and related issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–24 A.C. Milan season. Keep both! -- Riktetta (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Kante4 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this dispute is absolutely useless, all the championships even the less important ones have a wikipedia page by the end of March when some teams are already certain they will participate in the next championship, why this useless discussion? remove this discussion and let us work on the page so that users can have the most truthful information possible, I repeat even the Italian Serie B already has the page dedicated to 2023-24 why shouldn't Serie A also? 10:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudia 6546 (talk • contribs)
    @Claudia 6546 WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a valid point to remember in future. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2023 (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 WP:SNOW keep‎ . This is one of several AFDs with extremely similar rationales created by the same editor in quick succession after what appears to have been content disputes with no attempt to resolve outside of AFD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2023–24 EFL League One[edit]

2023–24 EFL League One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect with zero in-depth coverage. 2 of the current 3 sources do not even discuss the topic. Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the pages always get made when teams are confirmed to be in it and itll just get remade in 2 weeks anyway when the 22-23 season ends.Muur (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - how can User:onel5969 say that there are no sources for this - did the BEFORE extend beyond looking at the current article?; spots are being currently secured, with extensive media coverage. How did a WP:BEFORE note find stuff. The season article is always created at this time; April 9 in 2022, April 26 in 2021, March 15 in 2019, March 24 in 2018. Most of the spots will be selected in less than 7 days time when the AFD closes. Reliable sources now include one, two, three, four. Can User:onel5969 please remove this unnecessary AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep teams are already assured of being in leagueTomrtn (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Upcoming season of a professional league in Europe which has precedent of many years is for sure notable. Quite standard to set them up at this stage of the year prior to the beginning of the season. Honestly, this is quite a bad nomination and a waste of everyone's time. --SuperJew (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources out there per Nfitz, so no reason to delete. Kante4 (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification[edit]

Bowling at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft with zero improvements and zero in-depth coverage. 2 of the current 3 sources are empty. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Ganguly[edit]

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

Contested deletion.[38]. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo.  // Timothy :: talk  10:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Draftify: As per nominator - no sources in article, and some searching didn't really turn up anything that would meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I *think* there is potential here for an article, and they have directed a notable film, so WP:FILMMAKER could be met, but not with this mess. Start it as a draft and require AFC acceptance, there's going to be a fair number of fan edits otherwise. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Ravensfire. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:22, 24 April 2023 (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 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games. ✗plicit 11:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games[edit]

Mexico at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draft with no improvement, and zero in-depth sourcing (3 of the current sources are dead links). Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ . WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels (TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2010

PROD removed with "deprod; has run since 1998", but nothing added to prove notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The show won 'Best Magazine Format Show' at the Asian Television Awards in 2000, and the host Niret Alva won 'Best Current Affairs or Infotainment Programme Presenter' in 2002, not sure if that was soley for hosting Wheels or through multiple programs. Foreign language sources aren't easiest to search if you don't know where to look, and stuff from 20 years ago even harder. All I found was a Newsbank article (“Spin Doctor.” The Economic Times, 2002.) that mentioned both of these awards. Going to look for more sources but I'd probably lean keep. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Rabbids Invasion episodes#ep30b. ✗plicit 11:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of the Disappearing Rabbids[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. 11nth episode of the 2nd season of Rabbids Invasion. BEFORE and article shows nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a redirect to List of Rabbids Invasion episodes. Draft:The Mystery of the Disappearing Rabbids was just declined three times at AfC and article was has been recreated in mainspace (along with a request to merge the history of the draft). See User talk:Tunnizar for extensive article history.  // Timothy :: talk  10:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Kabang. ✗plicit 11:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Lim[edit]

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

This article has existed in articlespace since 2012. In 2023, the problems with its unreferenced content, adverted to multiple times, have remained. In my opinion, once that content were stripped away, we would find that this article is verifiably about a veterinarian from The Philippines who is active in philanthropic work, particularly as a Rotarian. What we would not find is that a Wikipedia article that meets any number of tests for notability, starting with the General notability guideline and including but not limited to WP:NBIO. Given the article's 11 year existence on en.wp, it would appear to me that this article should be tested at a deletion discussion. That said, I would have no objection to a WP:G11 outcome. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article popped up in my suggested edits. I had a squizz, and it immediately became apparent that it exists at the behest of someone with a vested interest and non-npov. If it wasn't for the overt flowery praise I might not have bothered with the G11 tag, but regardless, as it is I don't really see how it is encyclopedic or noteworthy. AbominableIntelligence (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kabang. It seems that most News mentions about him points to the dog whom he took care of. I've also added a cited mention about his caretaker role in the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to removed unsourced BLP vios, then Redirect to Kabang per above. Looks G11, BLP, fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  06:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with a delete first and then redirect --Lenticel (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2023 (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 05:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic swimming at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification[edit]

Artistic swimming at the 2023 Central American and Caribbean Games – Qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, relies on PS. This is a contested draft move. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:59, 22 April 2023 (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 Infected (HammerFall album). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One More Time (HammerFall song)[edit]

One More Time (HammerFall song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Fails GNG and WP:NSONG. Source eval:
  • Promo from primary >> 1.  "HAMMERFALL – limited picture 7inch for ... - Nuclear Blast USA". Archived from the original on 2014-04-13. Retrieved 2014-05-16.
  • Database record >> 2. ^ "Hammerfall – One More Time (2011, Vinyl)". Discogs.com. Retrieved 30 December 2021.
BEFORE showed database and promo, but nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepthy. No objection to a redirect to the album.  // Timothy :: talk  09:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Infected (HammerFall album) per nomination. Found nothing of value myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:04, 22 April 2023 (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 Racquetball at the 2023 Pan American Games. ✗plicit 11:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Racquetball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Qualification[edit]

Racquetball at the 2023 Pan American Games – Qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect with zero in-depth coverage. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but searches did not turn up any, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 11:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Women's Cricket World Cup[edit]

2025 Women's Cricket World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect with zero in-depth, independent sources. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Cricket, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This will be the next staging of the event. There are sources discussing who will be hosting. I would also support a redirect to the Women's Cricket World Cup as a WP:ATD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For now, I think this is sufficient for a standalone. We know the tournament will take place and there are references discussing who might host. StickyWicket (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zero in-depth, independent sources (!!??), nominator surely ignored WP:BEFORE. Article passes WP:CRYSTAL requirements which states, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This and this clearly indicates that sufficient coverage is available about the event and it is almost certain to take place. Anyway, Cricket World Cup is undoubtedly a notable event topic to pass WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT. RoboCric (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Think there's already enough here for a standalone article to exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Mumbai Metro stations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goregaon West metro station[edit]

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

Another contested redirect with zero in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up any, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Maharashtra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to List of Mumbai Metro stations. Insufficient coverage to meet GNG. Before the zombie argument that all train stations are notable is made (always seems to crop up without evidence): Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations, but may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or the criteria of a different section of the notability guideline. As GNG is not satisfied, deletion is appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, every other open station on the line has an article - how do our readers benefit by deleting just one - thus making it not possible to find on Special:Nearby and breaking the adjacent stations template navigation. Garuda3 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, this is incorrect. Other stations on that line redirect to List of Mumbai Metro stations, see Prem Nagar and Indira Nagar (Vile Parle). Though, now I point this out I will change my !vote to redirect as ATD. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to all open stations - there are other under construction stations that don't yet have articles. Garuda3 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Line 2 (Mumbai Metro) General convention is to redirect to the line article if the station cannot meet WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 19:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think there are any other operational metro stations that don't have articles. It makes no sense to redirect a single one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does make sense. Stations need to meet GNG. What policy indicates it's okay just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be WP:COMMONSENSE. Something that often seems sadly lacking on Wikipedia these days. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp fair enough, but there are more than 20 other stations on the same line that redirect to Line 2 or the list of Mumbai Metro Stations. A redirect I think makes the most sense. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Mumbai Metro stations. Fails GNG, and no keep arguments have been made on the merits of this article, only whataboutisms. I am open to being persuaded this station meets GNG via significant coverage in secondary sources, but as best I can tell that doesn't appear to be the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Mumbai Metro stations. Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG, and train stations are not given automatic notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Mumbai Metro stations. Fails GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  06:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Howorth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Being a one-term mayor of Manhattan Beach, California, (pop. c. 35K) isn't sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lippe[edit]

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

Although I created the entry, upon relfection this subject doesn't really meet WP:ENT because their productions were just amateur dramatics productions staged in a local theatre with an amateur cast. They've managed to drum up a bit of coverage in their local press, but nothing that could satisfy say C3 of WP:CREATIVE because that's symbiotic with general notability. Furthermore, her academic chairs don't satisfy anything approaching WP:NACADEMIC and the verification for on-campus postings is actually quite shakey. Obviously, WP:GNG is a far cry here becuase the sources focus entirly on these local theatre productions. Eichhornia Crassipes (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lubomira Stoynova[edit]

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

WP:SPORTBASIC clearly states that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. which is not the case here. Getting to the final of the Bulgarian International Championship is not even close to meeting WP:NBAD, not to be confused with the higher level Bulgarian Open (badminton). A Bulgarian search failed to yield any decent coverage of the badminton player of this name. She is mentioned in passing in La Nouvelle République but we need way more than this for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 19:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ezer Osei Yeboah-Boateng[edit]

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

While accomplished there is not enough in-depth coverage for them to meet WP:GNG, and with an h-Index of 10 and based on the positions listed in the article, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize for my untimely response to this discussion. In regards to your issue with the article concerning the general notability guideline I think this article actually meets the standard. The sources provided are independent and are from publications which are known for fact checking. The only issue that it might pose for notability may be in the issue of the subject having significant coverage. Individually the sources on their own do not give in-depth coverage of the subject however, Wikipedia biography (WP:BIO) says that multiple independent sources can be put together to demonstrate notability, which I feel was demonstrated in the article. Elvis7077 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May have a chance with PROF, what's her citation factor look like? Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has a couple over 100 (one over 200), but they are both co-authored. Hish-Index, as I said in the nom is only 10. Onel5969 TT me 22:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She? Subject appears to be male. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now. Onel5969 TT me 10:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is that if someone had a comparable government position in a more developed country, would their notability be questioned? And I don't know the answer to that in this case. BhamBoi (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO, NPOL or NACADEMIC. Sources are:
  • Gov source, primary :: 1.  "Prof. Ezer Osei Yeboah-Boateng – National Communications Authority". Retrieved 2023-03-24.
  • Appointment annoucement, not SIGCOV :: 2. ^ Dzakpata, Fred (2021-12-02). "Dr Ezer Yeboah-Boateng appointed deputy director of NCA". Asaase Radio. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  • Failed V, 404 :: 3. ^ Korankye, Kester (2022-03-24). "GCTU unveils 7 new Professors". Graphic Online. Retrieved 2023-03-29.
  • Appointment annoucement, but seems to have a biography that is not promotional :: 4. ^ "New Deputy Director-General of NCA appointed". GhanaWeb. 2021-12-02. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Half the article is unsourced BLP violations, no sources in article or BEFORE showed independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed ROUTINE news articles about the appointment.
WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
I think the GhanaWeb can be viewed as IS RS with SIGCOV. If someone adds additional INDEPENDENT RS to the article let me know.
If someone finds that the bio section of the GhanaWeb is a reprint of government sources, let me know, this would firm up my !v to Delete. // Timothy :: talk  05:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be an actionable consensus at this point, hopefully more input from editors will address that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2023 (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. Only one argument disputed the topic meets GNG. How GNG was achieved is irrelevant, even if fails all SNGs. Most editors evaluating the sources felt GNG was met, enough to find consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bongiovi[edit]

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

Still does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Known for being Millie Bobby Brown’s boyfriend and Jon Bon Jovi‘s son, not independently notable. He may be in the future with 2 movies coming out but even then, wont meet NACTOR for a bit. Merge into Jon Bon Jovi until he becomes independently notable LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Jersey. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps to my surprise, this is already a well-sourced article and meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well sourced but look at the articles:
    -Millie Bobby Brown and Jake Bongiovi's relationship timeline >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Coronavirus in NJ: Bon Jovi son had symptoms, family self-quarantined in Middletown >>> Bon Jovi's son
    -Who is Jacob Hurley Bongiovi? Millie Bobby Brown announces engagement to boyfriend >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Bon Jovi’s son will run away from N.J. He’s chosen an out-of-state college >>> Bon Jovi's son
    -Jon Bon Jovi's son Jake says he'll attend Syracuse University >>> Bon Jovi's son
    -Millie Bobby Brown engaged to Syracuse University alum Jake Bongiovi >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Millie Bobby Brown's beau Jake Bongiovi watches her film beach scene for The Electric State in GA >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Millie Bobbie Brown Sparks Rumours She's Engaged To Boyfriend Jake Bongiovi >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Millie Bobby Brown and Jake Bongiovi's Relationship Timeline >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Millie Bobby Brown announces her engagement to Jake Bongiovi >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Millie Bobby Brown and Jake Bongiovi hint they're engaged >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Millie Bobby Brown Engagement Joke Goes Viral After Age Controversy >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Why has Jake Bongiovi proposed to Millie Bobby Brown so young? >>> MBB's boyfriend
    -Stranger Things' teenage star Millie Bobby Brown wants to marry Jake Bongiovi – so what? >>> MBB's boyfriend

    If he wasn't with Millie Bobbie Brown or Bon Jovi's son would he even have these articles write about him? There are 3 articles about him joining the cast of an upcoming movie. That doesn't meet WP:GNG, if and when he becomes more established then yes to his own article but now? Should be merged with his dad's. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully accept that you disagree, but under this theory of notability, we would be deleting massive numbers of BLPs. Just the reduction of Kardashian related articles alone would probably measurably reduce the world's CO2 production for maintaining them. Alas to all the worthy scientists that have articles, that they must slum with the significant others of celebs who get 10x more coverage and become celebs themselves, not to mention minor British royals who literally have done nothing except get photographed.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources already in the article and those identified above demonstrate that the Wikipedia notability standard has been met. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Lady Lotus's analysis of the sources. Yes, there are a lot, but the vast majority relate to Bongiovi's relationships to his fiancee or father, and notability is not inhereited. The sources relating to his role in an upcoming film are not sufficient to demonstrate that he meets WP:NACTOR; at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Without the early life and personal life material, all that this article says about Bongiovi is that he may appear in two as yet unreleased films. The point of WP:GNG is to ensure that sufficient encyclopedic material can be written about the subject of an article; an article which consists largely of personal information is not encycopedic. WJ94 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he exists, and has notable relations but no evidence of N:ACTOR or other notability himself. Star Mississippi 16:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, passes GNG, significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BLP shows significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--Hildreth gazzard (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Agreed with Ortizep and Hildreth gazzard, it passes WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ . WP:G5 by User:Justlettersandnumbers (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Michael[edit]

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

I can't find sourcing for this person, the sources used appear typical celebrity fluff pieces using Gtranslate. Not meeting GNG, likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Keep : Nominator says, he can't finding sourcing for the subject and he says the sources are fluff pieces using gtranslate ? and says doesn't meet GNG. Here are the reasons why its wrong and the article should be kept. 

Reply to each section :

"Can find sources" - There are around 6 unique big length article all from reliable and independent secondary news sources all from reliable and reputed newspapers and magazines like International Business Times, Malayala Manorama, Vanitha, Onmanorama, Mathrubhumi etc talking about the subject. So it's irrelevant to tell that "can't find sources".

"Sources are not fluff pieces with and without using gtranslate" - There are 3 english news articles all detailed articles and secondary news sources, one from International Business Times and two from Onmanorama which doesn't need any Gtranslate and 3 other Malayalam detailed article secondary sources from Malayala Manorama, Vanitha and Mathrubhumi, all written by journalists as listed in these article and this detailed articles are no way fluff pieces.

"Meets GNG" - The International Business Times article https://www.ibtimes.co.in/kerala-showing-hesitance-accept-lgbt-community-says-top-makeup-artist-840767 is a detailed featured secondary news article about the subject , talking only about him in detail, similar is the case with 2 Onmanorama articles and additionally there are 3 very detailed and featured article secondary sources from Malayala Manorama, Vanitha and Mathrubhumi which makes the article pass GNG .

"Not PROMO" - The news references listed from International Business Times is written by journalist named Nirmal Narayanan . 2 Onmanorama articles are written by journalists Anagha Jayan E and Padmakumar K respectively. The Malayala Manorama article is written by journalist Deepthi Pellishery, The Mathrubhumi article is a special feature . Which proves that this is definetly not promo.

Christopheronthemove (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Striking sock. Greyjoy talk 16:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The International Business Times is not a reliable source; a special feature implies paid promotion in a newspaper. [39] Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can't find mention of the person in "reliable sources". Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: known for his viral photoshoots, celebrity makeup work for many South Indian celebrities. This is a promo piece and none of the sources are reliable. What is the claim of notability here? The subject becoming one among the many makeup artists and hairstylists of celebrities? This don't even pass WP:BASIC. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. 111.92.78.199 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::COMMENT : IP Votes can't be counted as per Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people Christopheronthemove (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where it is mentioned here that IP Votes can't be counted. Don't make your own rules. I make regular edits from IP without creating any account. I also closely monitor edits of many users like you. My IP address is not static and it keeps changing several times. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, was unable to find sources that support this article. Reviewed the sources and they also do not establish notability.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
International Business Times ? Was not able to find anything about the reporter No There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. WP:IBTIMES ~ Article is about the subject ✘ No
onmanorama ? Nothing in the archives for onmanorama ? Nothing in the archives for onmanorama No Article is just photos and some captions ✘ No
onmanorama ? Nothing in the archives for onmanorama ? Nothing in the archives for onmanorama ~ Article isn't really about him but it does mention him and he is quoted ? Unknown
Manorama Online Yes Appears to be independent Yes Considered a news org Yes Coverage from a viral photoshoot ✔ Yes
vanitha ? Nothing in the archives for vanitha ? Nothing in the archives for vanitha Yes Article is about the same photoshop with the same photos ? Unknown
mathrubhumi ? No Article has no analysis or depth just a link to a youtube video ~ Article is just a link to a youtube video with ~1500 views ✘ No
vanitha ? Same source as source 5 & 9 ? Same source as source 5 & 9 Yes Same source as source 5 & 9 ? Unknown
International Business Times ? Was not able to find anything about the reporter No There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. WP:IBTIMES Yes Article is about the subject ✘ No
vanitha ? Same source as source 5 & 7 ? Same source as source 5 & 7 Yes Same source as source 5 & 7 ? Unknown
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}}.

Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • :: COMMENT : This source analysis is baseless and biased. They have not even added reporters names and considered every article written by different journalists as not reliable. I will send the genuine source analysis in next comment. Christopheronthemove (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT : 'Here is the unbiased source analysis :
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
International Business Times Yes Journalist name - NIRMAL NARAYANAN - https://www.ibtimes.co.in/reporters/nirmal-narayanan Yes Syndicated news pieces in International Business Times is generally unreliable per WP:IBTIMES, but this is IB Times staff jounalist written article which is reliable. Yes 454 word Article about the subject ✔ Yes
Onmanorama Yes Journalist name - Anagha Jayan E - https://www.onmanorama.com/authors/anagha-jayan-e.html Yes Onmanorama is the english online newspaper from Malayala Manorama Yes 256 word Article about the subject ✔ Yes
Onmanorama Yes Journalist name - Padmakumar K - https://www.onmanorama.com/authors/padmakumar-k.html Yes Onmanorama is the english online newspaper from Malayala Manorama Yes 520 word Article about him and his works (Title itself marks him as Artist behind those brilliant makeovers) ✔ Yes
Manorama Online Yes Journalist name - ദീപ്‌തി പെല്ലിശ്ശേരി - https://www.manoramaonline.com/authors.deepthi-pellisseri.html Yes Article from Malayala Manorama Yes 500+ word Article about him and his viral photoshoot ✔ Yes
Vanitha Yes Journalist name - Binsha Muhammed - https://www.vanitha.in/authorlandingpage.html?author=Binsha-Muhammed Yes Article from Vanitha magazine having 6 Million circulation Yes 500+ Article about him and his life history ✔ Yes
Mathrubhumi News Yes Program Producer - AMRITHA A U - as listed in the video Yes Article with the interview video of the artist from Mathrubhumi News Yes Article with the interview video of the artist from Mathrubhumi News ✔ Yes
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}}.

This is the unbiased and genuine source analysis placing all journalist details Christopheronthemove (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by DrKay per criterion G8. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CI4thePro (Record Producer)[edit]

CI4thePro (Record Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears PROMO. No sources found; what's used in the article are youtube videos and a Google search result (neither of which prove notability). Gsearch goes straight to social media and streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2023 (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! 04:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wilcock[edit]

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

Non-notable diplomat Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one doesn't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I restored some text that 122Monaro (talk · contribs · count) had removed. The article now has one reference from a reliable source, a newspaper in Bangladesh. More references can probably be found. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and Bangladesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and get to have articles only if they can actually be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced mainly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and what's left for proper media coverage about him and his work isn't sufficient. And we also don't keep articles just because somebody speculates that better sourcing might exist somewhere that nobody has actually found, either — you have to show hard evidence that sufficient GNG-worthy sourcing definitively exists before WP:NEXIST is allowed to derail a deletion discussion. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2023 (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! 04:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chillz Frozen Custard[edit]

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

A now closed reference that fails GNG. Nothing in gnews. Some of the sources are local or blogs. The Guardian source may be considered reliable but it covers 10 restaurants so not particularly indepth. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2023 (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 2022–23 CAF Champions League. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 CAF Champions League Finals[edit]

2023 CAF Champions League Finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draftification with zero in-depth sources, and zero improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 00:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking this over I should have gone with draft in the first place. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 22:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Will be happening in less than two months. --SuperJew (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of seaQuest DSV episodes. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the Truth (seaQuest DSV)[edit]

Nothing but the Truth (seaQuest DSV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:49, 22 April 2023 (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 2022–23 CAF Confederation Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 CAF Confederation Cup Finals[edit]

2023 CAF Confederation Cup Finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested draftification with zero in-depth sources, and zero improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 00:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Heroes episodes. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Kindness of Strangers (Heroes)[edit]

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With two episode-specific reviews from respectable sources in the Critical Reception section, and additional ratings information, it seems like the multiple sources needed to satisfy Notability requirements are met. It'd be nice if the reviews were used to provide more than a letter/number grade with some quotes, though. It seems like the nomination missed the non-plot section, but it's so small, I could see why. WikiPete18 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The two reviews are pretty weak; per WP:NFSOURCES—which is easily applicable here too—we should avoid plot summaries without critical commentary as evidence of notability. The AV Club reviewer calls his review a blog, and both of them seem more concerned with recording updates to the plot, rather than making critical commentary of any depth. The amount that could be drawn from the two reviews to add to an article would be of more value in the context of the season anyway, rather than keeping a whole article for the episode. — HTGS (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Heroes episodes where it already has an entry. Unneeded CFORK, Fails GNG, routine entertainment synops do not demonstrate notability. I looks like articles are being created for every episode of the show, without regard to notability guidelines, once a few are deleted individually, a group nom should be made for cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk  06:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Heroes episodes, where the episode is already listed per above. CycloneYoris talk! 00:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_22&oldid=1152900769"