Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Yaraghi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohamad Yaraghi (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 in WP:NACTOR nd WP:GNGACTOR . No secondery reliable sources. Worldiswide (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing found, one Spanish article that seems unrelated. [1]. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be sources in this article. Adler3 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adler3 which ?, please specify Worldiswide (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, a two weeks old account that have been participating on AfD for exactly one day? Nothing fishy here, right? Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the 26 cited sources passed WP:GNG. They can be roughly divided into three groups:
Type Source # Problems
Unreliable 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 25, 26 Sites that can't be used to prove notability of a person, like Google news, social media profile, film archives, and online music stores.
Promotional 3, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 All of them are announcement of upcoming films, and they're trying to prove how notable the films will be with number of participating actors. A few of them have suspicious resemblance to each other.
Trivial mentions 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 The subject was mentioned as part of the film productions, with the focus being the films instead of the subject.
I did not manage to locate any useful contents that can be used as sources, even with searches in Persian. A major work by the subject, They Won't Remember You, seems to have been draftified in April. Not to mention the creator of the article, Manageriran, has only worked on the articles of the subject and the aforementioned film. This article is highly likely to be a WP:PROMO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:33, 19 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 but as a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tractate[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tractate (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:DICTDEF, this is just another word for treatise as the article admits, it should either be redirected there or deleted, and it does not seem like a useful redirect so I believe it should be deleted. This article was previously deleted in 2005 and then recreated. - car chasm (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe article is redundant with the linked article treatise. Adler3 (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Sojourner in the earth. Although it does effectively mean a treatise, the point that them make is very valid. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambig useful for navigation. --Jahaza (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Sojourner in the earth. --Chefallen (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  does not meet WP:GNG Justwatchmee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 18 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Majors[edit]

Charity Majors (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)

Requested at WT:AFD as the subject has little notability and has remained a stub for a long time. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source talking about the subject is self published (open New York Times), the second is not reliable (Business Insider). Keeping this article would go against WP:NBASIC. This BLP stub has not been improved in more than a year and I believe the subject will have even less notability in the future. (I am the original filer of the AfD) 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note: this is the IP that requested the deletion (permalink). Primefac (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: There's no consensus that Business Insider is not reliable per WP:BI. Here, I think BI is reliable because the article was written by a journalist who works for BI, not via syndication of sponsored content. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Note that OP who lodged the request for this AfD (not Zippybonzo) was blocked for disruptive editing. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC because almost all sources appear to be interviews, which are primary sources and don't count towards establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting as I find this discussion a bit confusing with the original nominator's vote struck out and the proposal to redirect this article to one that doesn't exist. Hopefully, a few more opinions will make consensus more conclusive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources for this article. Adler3 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here are some sources (please note my conflict of interest): https://www.businessinsider.com/honeycomb-ceo-charity-majors-is-a-force-of-nature-for-valley-engineers-2017-5 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/business/startups-enterprise-big-tech.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3137501/ex-facebook-dropbox-engineers-offer-debugging-as-a-service.html Lizthegrey (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO; interviews are not independent of the person being interviewed, since all of the relevant content in such an interview comes from the subject themselves. The proposed redirect target above doesn't exist so isn't a viable target. - Aoidh (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pharaoh of the Wizards, @Liz, & @Aoidh, it appears someone has created the page I had in mind for the redirect (honeycomb.io). Thoughts? Lizthegrey (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that a brand new SPA (whose only edit outside of creating this article was to briefly edit Liz Fong-Jones) threw together an article that would present a valid redirect target for this article's subject at AfD. COI concerns aside I haven't looked into it too much, but I'm not overly impressed with the state of the sourcing in that article and suspect it in turn would not survive an AfD. This individual's claims go beyond this honeycomb.io company so it remains an unviable redirect target, even if it (for now) exists. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for considering.
    aside: yeah I admit being absolutely befuddled by the out of the blue SPA as well, someone might want to request a SPI against both me and against User:SquareInARoundHole just to confirm or rule those possibilities out. I checked with our PR agency and they say it isn't them, for the record. Lizthegrey (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if it sounded like I was accusing you specifically of having anything to do with that account, I am not. I'm not pointing fingers at existing editors (else my comments would have gone to SPI) but it is suspicious timing that the account was created with the sole focus of this company and its leadership, and happened to have created an article during this AfD that just happens to solve a redirect problem presented here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honeycomb.io&action=history
    In the edit history the edit timing is coordinated within minutes between Liz the Grey and Love The Andes so it is pretty clear it is an alt account like you are saying. In the biography linked here and the new article it says she is network engineer so this is why she is confident saying "go verify me".
    Also I do not know why she suddenly says in this conversation she is not a banned account unrelated to the discussion User:SquareInARoundHole (not User:Love The Andes).
    However I think the new article, whoever made it, has enough sources so I change my view to support redirect. Maybe even this current article can be improved with extra sources. Adler3 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Lizthegrey (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are routinely deleted at AfD that have dozens of sources; it's the quality of the sources that matter rather than the quantity. The existence of sources in an article does not establish or even create a presumption of notability. That article fails WP:NORG and this one fails WP:NBIO, even if it were a viable redirect target, which again it is not. - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because SquareInARoundHole has a history of socking articles in this topic area which makes me think Andes is them, but that's an aside we can take over to SPI. Lizthegrey (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and the proposed redirect target above does not exist at present so isn't a viable target.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded the article quite a bit past where it was when nominated for deletion. The new sources include the New York Times (an article, not the Open NYT mentioned above in this discussion) and InfoWorld. Majors' ideas are also noted in books, and she herself has published a few books (though they are technical books and I was not able to find reviews). DaffodilOcean (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new sources are a trivial book mention in the introduction where they're described simply as a friendly coworker of the author (so not independent), a podcast interview and a web interview and a trivial mention in the NYT, not enough to show notability for even WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've only skimmed the References section which shows article titles, but none seem like much of a biography, and she doesn't seem to be known for anything YET (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL) other than starting this company. WP:1E sort of applies here, one company. IF the company is successful and she becomes known for entrepeneurship and/or good leadership or something else, than she may be notable in the future. (For the record, I'd likely be classified as a deletionist.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs) 22:50, May 19, 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect She definitely isn't just notable for her company as she has notability from her other careers and works. The article can definitely be expanded, but if not redirect it to the more notable Honeycomb.io. Love The Andes (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) — Love The Andes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Another thing these debates have lost over the past few years is that every lede should make a claim or summarize the person's notability. This one doesn't; it simply recounts her job history. 128.252.154.3 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As has been extensively discussed, none of the sources are of a high enough quality to meet WP:NBASIC. I think a key point is that, per WP:SIGCOV, suitable sources address the subject directly. In this case, it appears that Majors is often mentioned in sources about Honeycomb, but only in her relation to that company. Material that mentions her but is not about her in that sense does not establish notability, even if the other criteria were fully met. It can contribute to it, but if a person is only ever discussed or mentioned in relation to their position in their company, that probably indicates a lack of notability of that person as a standalone subject. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Actualcpscm's decision. CastJared (talk) 15:05, 28 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 no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wood diesel[edit]

Wood diesel (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 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was newly developed in the lab and has not become an actual product since. Reywas92Talk 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to purchase the article subject has nothing to do with it's notability. small jars tc 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more notable if it was actually produced in bulk Chidgk1 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more notable if RSes had more things to say about it. I guess production could be one of those things. I do agree there's content issue with the weight given to enviromental/economic benefits in this and the section in pyrolysis oil if they haven't come to fruition. It should focus on the science if the topic is experimental. small jars tc 14:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What links here is part of WP:BEFORE. If you had checked, you should have found two distinct reliable sources on wood diesel at pyrolysis oil, enough to pass WP:GNG. small jars tc 16:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not independent reporting, it's a press release by the University of Georgia touting their own researchers' publication. This is essentially the same thing repackaged, using the same quote <"It's going to take a while before this fuel is widely available," Adams said. "We've just started on developing a new technology that has a lot of promise."> Without any further development of additional research publications and independent discussion, I do not see notability, and Wikipedia is not the place for stand-alone articles for any new technology. I maintain my delete vote and would also suggest removing it from Pyrolysis oil unless this moved beyond this lab. Reywas92Talk 21:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points and I should have been less arrogant. It still seems to meet GNG from sources such as [2] and [3], though these seem to be less practical forms of diesel-compatible biofuels based on wood than the one the article is currently focussed on. small jars tc 22:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's this [4], I'm not sure if it's the same product though. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could redirect to biomass, which I think is a similar product, but I'm not an expert in biofuels. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or I could merge with Biodiesel if people don’t wish to delete it Chidgk1 (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing about that merge is that "wood (bio)diesel" seems to refer to various biofuels that can be combined with or used as a replacement for (bio)diesels, rather than to biodiesel in the proper sense of the word. small jars tc 10:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether deletion or merging is the better solution (and if it is Merge, to which specific article).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems to be important, there is one source only, but the article can be improved. Adler3 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ASSERTN. You can't make vague statements about notability without backing them up. If you can find sources that do, I am willing to change my vote. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://biomassmagazine.com/articles/19846/alleo-energy-produces-renewable-diesel-from-wood-waste
https://www.dw.com/en/powering-cars-with-diesel-made-from-wood/a-16148231
These sources seems to talk about Wood diesel. There might be overlaps with another article Adler3 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adler3 is now blocked, but both the sources they gave are good finds which are not derivative of the press release that !voters brought up earlier in the discussion. We still have the problem that wood (bio)diesel is a loosely defined concept, and this article could benefit from expert attention. small jars tc 16:28, 22 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 12:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Jat[edit]

Manoj Jat (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 any coverage of this player outside of his own social media accounts and YouTube videos. The sources cited do not mention Manoj Jat and both were taken from Manoj Thonipurakkal Manoharan, which the same article creator hijacked previously. Appears to fail WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be a self insert with no sources Adler3 (talk) 00:52, 15 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 due to lack of significant coverage. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tauati Tanoa'i[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article appears to have sources which support claims in the article. Are the source great? No. But if you look at online sources for topics in Oceania they tricky to find. Also Newspaper.com from [[WP:LIBRARY] is still not working so I can't check Newspapers at this time. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per Dr. Vulpes. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
Comments Source
Database 1. "Tauati Tanoa'i". Global Sports Archive. Retrieved 2 November 2021.
Name listed in roster 2. ^ "SAMOA OFF TO OLYMPICS QUALIFIER". Football Federation Samoa. 18 September 2019. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
Name listed in roster 3. ^ "Samoa Pacific Games squad announced". Loop Samoa. 17 June 2019. Retrieved 10 July 2022.
Name listed in roster 4. ^ Soli Wilson (8 June 2019). "Football Pacific Games squad announced". Samoa Observer. Retrieved 10 July 2022.
Name listed in roster 5. ^ Thomas Airey (18 January 2020). "Lupe o le Soaga side ready for Oceania". Samoa Observer. Retrieved 5 May 2023.
Keep votes provided no sources, BEFORE showed nothing, Being listed in rosters and databases does not demonstrate notability. 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  04:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue Legit question, not being a jerk or anything but what do we do with all these articles with minimal sources? There are dozens and dozens of articles like this, do we just mass delete them all? Normally I would hit up Newspapers.com and try to find something but it's not working right now. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If most can be brought to a level where there are 2 or more sources giving more than a trivial mention then the article is fine to stay. Those that lack this, even after source searches, should be considered for deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 which is the absolute minimum requirement, this was reinforced in this recent discussion. I found him in the blacklisted site Football Arroyo but this is yet another squad list mention that fails to address Tanoa'i in any detail whatsoever. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:49, 21 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz Ali Khan[edit]

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

Sent this to AfD because a PROD on this article was opposed. Artist fails WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article is only really mentioned for playing at one music festival, does not have an album on a national music chart or a certified gold album (I admit that's a hard bar to cross for classical music), does not have coverage for a national tour only for the one music festival, has not won or been nominated for a major music award, has not won a major music competition.

The closest source that I found while searching the news archives was he played with his uncle who was a Grammy nominee. I don't think that really satisfies WP:MUSICBIO but I could be wrong. The article was in Gulf News and it's reliability has been questioned before on WP:RSN.

I copyedited the article and removed some other sources that were included, one was from the Hindu and was very similar to the Asian Age article, another was a recording of his music on the Internet Archive, and the other was from the Gulf News and was only a passing mention.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Bengal Classical Music Fest Yes I'm willing to assume that there isn't undue influence ~ Site is for a music festival but doesn't go into details about the subject No Source gives only a passing mention of Khan ✘ No
Asian Age Yes Appears to be a news organization Yes Article appears to be from a reliable news source Yes Coverage about Khan's appearance at a music festival ✔ 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}}.
Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone finds a source I missed, or a non-English source that helps this pass WP:MUSICBIO please ping me so I can withdraw this nomination asap. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed from Artists, added to list of Music-related deletion discussions.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I opposed the PROD because I think this is a borderline case under WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, given the Asian Age article cited in Dr vulpes' chart and these two articles: https://archive.ph/FxbbB and https://archive.ph/JzlqK. I'm hoping that someone with knowledge of traditional Indian music weighs in and so I'm withholding judgment for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah @Voorts, I wasn't sure how to count the coverage from the Legends of India event. There appears to be some coverage about it but the sources tend to mention his uncle more then him which is why I didn't really feel like it passed WP:MUSICBIO. This AfD is a hard one because I think right now he just barely misses the mark but could very easily be notable if just a couple of solid sources were dug up. Adding to the difficulty this is not my area of expertise when it comes to reference hunting. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to vote for draftify until the subject became notable someday, but even searching in Hindi, there's only one other article that constitute significant coverage, and it is basically interviewed material written in a third person perspective. It seems that the subject has not received any significant attention since 2017, which make me doubt of the subject's potential to become famous in the near future. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the Hindi search @Tutwakhamoe, I'm always nervous doing searching with non-latin alphabets. Not saying they're not good sources or anything like that. It's 100% a lack of knowlege on my end and having to trust Google. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 14 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnens lexikon[edit]

Barnens lexikon (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 source is an entry in world cat. Not clear the topic passes WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added a review, but I haven't been able to find any additional reviews. I would expect a work like this would have been reviewed by publications aimed at libraries, parents or teachers when it was first published, but I can't find any online. The Swedish article is pretty much the same as the English one. Still, it seems like a topic that belongs in Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eastmain: It was reviewed in major newspapers, actually; this was a big thing in Sweden. But the sources are printed and not easily accessible; even the material which has been digitized is (for copyright reasons) very inaccessible. See my comment below. /Julle (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was an important publication, and generally reviewed in major newspapers (partial newspaper archive: a lot of newspapers are not included, as they have yet not been digitized); unforunately I can't access the full texts, which requires being at the National Library of Sweden or in front of one of the few university library computers with access, none of which reside in my city as far as I'm aware. A search in w:sv:Mediearkivet which has full texts and more newspapers give hits, but only in passing; the articles are written decades after Barnens lexikon was published and refer to it as a thing everyone is assumed to be familiar with. In short, I'm utterly convinced this easily passes WP:GNG and is very relevant for inclusion: it was the Swedish encyclopedia for children of its time. But it was published in the early 80s; the relevant sources are print material. Through the National Library's newspaper archive, we can see that the articles exist, but not what they actually say so we could reference them. /Julle (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, there are English Wikipedians who would have access to the newspaper archive at the National Library of Sweden; those who live near the library or students or staff at universities with access to the archive. When I say that "we" can't read the articles I mean that they are not easily acessible to most of us. /Julle (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG since it has been reviewed in several newspapers. Sjö (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since references have been added after it was taken to AfD, in combination with the articles I've pointed to above. /Julle (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on what's avaliable in the DN archive I'm convinced that GNG is satisfied. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:24, 21 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. I hope that in the future, this scholar meets our Academic standards for notability but the clear consensus here today is to Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Dziedzic[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anna Dziedzic (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)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for academics. Talk page cites an award as fulfilling notability criteria. The award in question is for the best student paper at a conference, and as such is not a "highly prestigious academic award" for the purposes of WP:ACADEMIC. The article includes no secondary sources. Optimah (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The Richard Hart Prize is an award for the best paper from an emerging scholar at a biennial conference jointly hosted by Cambridge and the University of Melbourne, two of the best law institutions on the planet. This is a highly prestigious academic award on any fair assessment. Jack4576 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award was presented to her personally at the conference by Lord Mance, for goodness sake, while he was deputy president of the UK Supreme Court. This is probably the most prestigious award an early career common law law scholar can possibly receive.
You would be hard pressed to find an award more prestigious in this field. Feel free to let me know if you find one.
In the meantime, if this deletion goes ahead; this is yet another example of Wikipedia exercising its systemic biases against early career female academics. Patently disgraceful nomination and shame on you all who have voted delete on this one.
(SusunW, I am not canvassing you here, please don't vote, but just highlighting another example of an AfD where an overly strict application of guidelines is affecting systemic representation on this site. SIGCOV is a disgrace in practice) Jack4576 (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, as I've told you before, feel free to create your own online encyclopedia with any notability criteria you choose. You could even be the sole admin and have final say on deletion of any articles LibStar (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I. Am. Arguing. Under. Wikipedia's. Own. Notability. Guidelines.
Please. Read. WP:ACADEMIC. Criterion. Number. Two. Jack4576 (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the last few days/weeks you have been whinging about how the encyclopedia is not right and is not retaining information. You've even invented your own criteria in AfDs to establish notability. Could you imagine how much enjoyment you'd have if you ran your own online encyclopedia with your own rules? LibStar (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my esteemed fellow, your remarks sing to me like a lark at dawn - delightful, if somewhat dissonant. I confess I have been a thorn in the side of complacency, a bee in the bonnet of unexamined consensus, yet, is not such fervor the lifeblood of our endeavor?
I am accused of inventing criteria for AfDs. Surely, you jest! I do not invent, dear colleague; I merely illuminate the unseen, undusting the corners of our understanding, for are we not all seekers of truth in this grand academic arena?
As for the suggestion of running my own encyclopedia - what an enchanting notion! But alas, it lacks the robust melee of intellects, the crucible of challenge that we so heartily enjoy here. It is not power, but the pursuit of truth that quickens my pulse.
I assure you, dear friend, your admonishments serve only to fan the flames of my resolve. It is in our earnest disagreements that the finest facets of our shared undertaking are polished to brilliance. Thus, I will carry on, not as a stubborn mule, but as a dedicated steward of our shared wisdom. Jack4576 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was also not a best 'student paper' it was best PhD thesis. She was later awarded her doctorate on the basis of the paper she won the award for. The premise of this nom is mistaken. Jack4576 (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that the University of Melbourne is one of the best law institutions on the planet? LibStar (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
University of Melbourne: QS World Rankings #6, Times Higher Education #5
Cambridge: QS World Rankings #3, Times Higher Education #2
This info just one Google away LibStar Jack4576 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graduate-level awards are explicitly discounted by NPROF: awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on my source review, it seems too soon to support notability according to relevant guidelines for a "postdoctoral fellow in comparative constitutional law at Melbourne law school" (Guardian, Jan. 2023). WP:NPROF#2 includes, "awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1", so winning an early-career award for a PhD thesis seems specifically excluded by this language, but also generally by Criterion 2 when read as a whole, which identifies "major academic awards" and "a high level of academic prestige" as indicators of support for notability. Dziedzic has been quoted as an expert in e.g. ABC AU (2022), Stuff (2022), NYT (2022), Stuff (2022), Guardian (2022), SCMP (2022), Guardian (2021), but this seems insufficient to demonstrate substantial impact per WP:NPROF#7 and insufficiently sustained as well as lacking sufficient depth per WP:BASIC. She has also published a book, titled Foreign Judges in the Pacific and in January 2022 discussed co-editing The Cambridge Handbook of Foreign Judges on Domestic Courts. [7] (which was since published). In the databases I have access to at the WP Library, I see a few sources referencing her book, but no reviews to support WP:NAUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about WP:BIO? Might the sources above, collectively assessed, amount to SIGCOV under those guidelines? Jack4576 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also, I think it was for her thesis, but the award may have actually instead been for ‘work by an early career scholar’ for her book on pacific island judges
    In that case it wouldn’t have been a student award
    Cant find the source to confirm Jack4576 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found one, here is a tweet from Adrienne Stone showing that the award was for ‘best paper by early career scholar’
    and so was not for her student thesis
    (link to tweet) Jack4576 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR are WP:BIO guidelines, and there does not appear to be sufficiently sustained, in-depth support for notability according to these guidelines at this time. Her book on pacific island judges was published in 2021 so it does not seem possible for her to have received a 2018 award for the book. In a 2022 interview, she says "This book grew from my PhD research, which I completed at Melbourne Law School in 2019." It appears she won an award for work completed while she was a student, and we also cannot, regardless of how we parse the specific language, consider the award to confer "a high level of academic prestige" or to be a "major academic award", due to the nature of the award (i.e. "early career") and a lack of secondary support to indicate that this award is 'major' or 'prestigious.' Beccaynr (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A prize for the best paper at a conference is hardly ever going to be the kind of award that WP:PROF#C2 asks for. Look at the examples listed there: we're talking Guggenheim up to MacArthur, Fields, and Nobel. This holds true whether the author of the paper is a student, a postdoc, professor, whatever. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing I have to say to that, is this scholar's field is constitutional law particularly in the common world
    There isn't a 'Fields', or 'Nobel' for this area of scholarship
    In the absence of those, this is a relatively outstanding award that a scholar in this niche interest could possibly receive; best paper at a regular, biennial, an international conference on Public Law, attended by scholars of various faculties in the common law world; hosted by two of the strongest universities Jack4576 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    C#2 may include "honors and prizes of notable academic societies", e.g. the Australian Academy of Law has an elected fellowship. Beccaynr (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, would not the CCCS (Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies) count?
    It is an academic society for constitutional law academics globally; with fellows across Australia, Asia, South America, and elsewhere. It’s a constitutional law society of international scope and renown, and a large reason why Melbourne Law School as its host receives so many academic citations
    This is the academic society that ran the biennial CCCS conference and thus gave Anna her prize. As a constitutional law academic, there really isn’t anything better in her field than this
    Jack4576 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An elected fellowship in a notable academic society (e.g. Australian Academy of Law, an NGO) tends to be selective and based on a distinguished career; we can review the admission criteria to help determine whether it supports C2 notability (compare e.g. the International Association of Constitutional Law, which appears to only offer membership for a fee).
    I do not think the C2 guideline anticipates including an early career scholar prize awarded for a paper at a CCCS conference as the equivalent of the more selective and well-known awards and honors listed as examples. The Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies is part of Melbourne Law School - it does not appear to be an academic society; it describes itself as "one of the Law School's specialist research centres." Beccaynr (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An elected fellowship in a society like the AAoL would definitely be better than a "best paper" award. So would a named chair. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per excellent analyses above. Does not meet NPROF or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked, but I can't substantiate a case for passing the guidelines for academics or those for authors. It's possible that the situation may change, e.g., if she publishes a second book and both receive some substantial reviews. I don't like to see biographies of women go, but any standard that would allow this page to pass would be a standard that allows countless men to use Wikipedia as LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could vote IAR on the basis she's a prominent female academic in her field Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this is not a vote. Second, if there were evidence that she is actually prominent, I wouldn't have to ignore any rules to say so. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not using the word 'vote' to imply that AfD discussions are decided by poll.
    There is evidence she's prominent, in her niche legal field; its just not good enough for the text of NACADEMIC or GNG as written.
    Yet another manifestation of the reason why Wikipedia lacks credibility in formal academic institutions, to be frank with you.
    I agree with the fact that you are applying the guidelines as written, arguably, hence the resort to IAR. Jack4576 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless our consensus radically changes, we almost never keep untenured professors per the PROF test. An early-career award is almost irrelevant. Many law students edit a law review (as I did); it is evidence of notability as an attorney, but virtually all law professors were on law review. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't analogous to editing a law review. Jack4576 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr.—Alalch E. 21:53, 21 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Uzbekistan[edit]

List of years in Uzbekistan (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 page is almost entirely a list of redirects to itself. There are only a few links here that actually have pages. This page could better be served as a footer template. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footerize Every 12 months in Uzbekistan, a year passes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 12 links go to actual articles, and although it's marginal in my opinion, I think there's enough links for the article to exist. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm concerned that if we eliminate one sovereign country's list of years, we create a terrible precedent. Certainly, more work needs to be done, but that is not the purpose of AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 18 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Duke[edit]

Mr Duke (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. Article was created in 2007 by what appears to be a fan, relative, or by Edwards himself, violating WP:COI. Only reference in article redirects to a dead link. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Found no significant coverage regarding the subject. I tried to search for him on Allmusic as well, and found no artist under "Mr Duke". While there seems to be a lot of musicians named "David Edwards", none of those listed on Allmusic seems to be him. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:04, 19 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Thatta accident[edit]

2023 Thatta accident (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 tragic, no enduring coverage, so delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 15:35, 14 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Borysenko[edit]

Pavlo Borysenko (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 Joeykai (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Borysenko is now a naturalised Romanian citizen, I suspect there will also be significant coverage on the Romanian internet, but I haven't checked, as I don't speak Romanian. At the very least, it would be unacceptable to delete this article without asking for the input of a Romanian speaker. All the best, Akakievich (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; based on the sources listed above I feel comfortable affirming that GNG has been met. I cannot say with any certainty how reliable those sources are though and I welcome discussion on that.18abruce (talk) 21:58, 19 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Based News[edit]

Plant Based News (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)

Plant Based News does not meet the WP:ORGCRIT criteria since the only reference provided is the organization's own About page, and I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Wpstatus (talk) 14:52, 14 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 23:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Sgambelluri[edit]

Melissa Sgambelluri (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:NSINGER; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The third link looks like it may have been SIGCOV at the time, but it is a permanent dead link. To stay on the safe side, I think we should assume that article contained significant coverage at the time and keep this article on that basis Jack4576 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No we shouldn't. It is WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 08:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be open to a redirect to Idol finalists from that year. Jack4576 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, she was not a finalist or even a semifinalist. A redirect to the American Idol article would be inappropriate. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This already covers WP:SIGCOV, so, this needs more citations. CastJared (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She doesn't meet GNG or NSINGER and there's no evidence she's notable (even if it were available, I don't think an article about an alum in a school newspaper is strong evidence of notability on its own). I'd have supported a redirect as suggested by Jack, except on closer examination she's not even an American Idol finalist; she's not mentioned on American Idol (season 6) at all. According to her page, she appeared in the first few minutes of the "Best of the Rest" episode. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and possibly smerge a mention. I created this article when our standards were much lower than today. I was a fan of the show and thought that the "best of the rest" should get their own articles. She appeared in every show of the season, but was eliminated after the Las Vegas episode. She got her 15 minutes of fame, but that's it. There's been no ongoing coverage. At best, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. At worse, the coverage is primarily local and fleeting. I would not oppose a deletion, but a redirect allows it to be re-created if she gets a second shot at fame. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reference are a plain failure of WP:SIGCOV with ultra local news. Single event. No significant coverage. Doesn't meet any of the criteria as far as I can see. Kudos to @Bearian: for spotting one of his early prototype articles, recognising it lacked the necessary and promoting it to the Afd queue. Possible redirect if a decent redirect target can be found. scope_creepTalk 08:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
Comments Source
Fails V, nothing about subject 1. James Yeara, Review of Fiddler on the Roof: "Raise High", Metroland, Vol. 27, No. 33, found at Metroland on line. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Fails V, 404, subject is alumni, Fails IS 2. ^ Saint Rose Magazine, Summer 2007, p. 18, found at [1][permanent dead link]. PDF. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Fails V, 404, subject is alumni, Fails IS 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Kyle Griffin, "Saint Rose alum makes it to Hollywood: She made it to Hollywood, but who is alum Melissa Sgambelluri?", College of Saint Rose CSR Chronicle, February 4, 2007, found at: CSR Chronicle article[permanent dead link]. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Fails V, 404, text indicates fan site, archive does to message board 4. ^ Jump up to:a b Idol Fan site Archived 2008-01-05 at archive.today. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Fails V, 404, archive also 404 5. ^ Mark McGuire, "For TV extroverts, silence is a harsh reality," Albany Times Union, January 26, 2007, found at Times Union story Archived 2008-06-05 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Fan Page 6. ^ American Idol fan page Archived 2007-07-15 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Interview 7. ^ Mark McGuire, "No Reason to Watch," Albany Times Union, February 15, 2007, found at Mark McGuire's blog for the Albany Times Union Archived 2007-02-20 at the Wayback Machine.
Failed V, 404 8. ^ Mark McGuire, "Albany Singer Makes 'Idol' 100 Round: Spa Employee Melissa Sgambelluri Gets Nod From Abdul and Jackson," Albany Times Union, January 26, 2007, found at Red Orbit web site. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Not a ref 9. ^ Judge Simon Cowell vetoed Sgambelluri's continued progress in that season of American Idol.
Radio station promo, nothing about subject, fails SIGCOV 10. ^ Radio Station FLY 92 party Archived 2005-04-06 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Youtube 11. ^ YouTube. Accessed January 17, 2008.
Soundclick site 12. ^ Soundclick.com web site. Accessed January 23, 2008.
Jack did a complete BEFORE, but was unable to show even a single source from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Their comments about still keeping this BLP shows they have no regard for guidelines or even policy in BLP. 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  21:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the lack of SIGCOV, and per scope_creep. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:38, 21 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. Objections from the article creator did not include any sources to show the company is notable. RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Celebrity Agency (Artistes Management Mediacorp)[edit]

The Celebrity Agency (Artistes Management Mediacorp) (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 piece on a non-notable business. Search only finds routine business reporting and passing mentions. Has been previously draftified, but moved back into the main space, hence here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was hoping that there would be more news, beyond the usual news of artistes leaving or joining, about this arm of the organisation to appear so that it meets the prevalent notability guidelines before moving to the mainspace. But thus far there have been no such articles, even in historical context. After the deletion, I suggest a recreation of the initial redirect and locking it up until there are orgcrit sources because there will be editors being overly enthusiastic in developing articles for the Singapore TV industry while ignoring the norms of enwiki. :– robertsky (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG/WP:ORGCRIT, agreed with Robertsky. CastJared (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Failed GNG per above comments Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article shouldn't be delete. Who know how make this article not to be delete. Wikipedia is free for any to create and edit article. This article is regarding an artiste management in Singapore, more this artiste management is well-known in Singapore. Happygirl1976 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Happygirl1976: Current sources notwithstanding, can you provide three best independent, third-party, and in-depth/significant coverage sources to sustain the notability of the article? – robertsky (talk) 16:29, 17 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western Governors University College of Information Technology[edit]

Western Governors University College of Information Technology (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)

Subject is not independently notable ElKevbo (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Western Governors University Jack4576 (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little - maybe a sentence or two - that might be worth merging. The vast majority is unsourced, unnecessary, or about the parent institution. ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It has a large enrollment, but that's about it. Redirect to main uni page. Kiran_891 (TALK) 22:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ORG, all sources relate to the school not the department. A redirect would be pointless as mentioned above.  // Timothy :: talk  21:04, 21 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 14:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Case[edit]

Bruce Case (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)

Would have prodded this, since it is such an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS, but the editor constantly re-creates the article, first it was rejected at AfC by Johannes Maximilian, the following day it was created in mainspace, but then moved to draft by Deb, after which it was submitted without improvement and declined by AngusWOOF, after which it was simply recreated in mainspace, again without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 11:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator should be blocked for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is highly misleading and accuses a living person of a crime (murder). This is not compliant with WP:BLP. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if nothing else on TNT grounds; the article is written with such emotion and sense of righting wrongs that it would have to be rewritten from scratch if the incident were proven notable. The key thing for notability is the claim that this incident led to a change in the law (which would give the event lasting meaning) but so far as I can make out, the source used to support this claim doesn't refer to this specific incident. The final citation about the law doesn't refer to animal cruelty at all (it's about mining and indigenous lands). I would say speedy, but the article (fortunately) fails to identify the person who killed the dog. Elemimele (talk) 15:35, 14 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 merge‎ to List of Fatal Fury characters. ✗plicit 14:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Howard[edit]

Rock Howard (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 minor character clearly fails WP:GNG. Despite well written, sources were mostly from trivia mentions. Also at reception section, those were full of passing mentions and listicles, thus showing zero WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:37, 14 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minhaj Uddin[edit]

Minhaj Uddin (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. The position of the imam of a mosque in a university in Qatar is not inherently notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current redirect ↪ Muhammad Minhaj Uddin
Logs: 2023-05 move to → Muhammad Minhaj Uddin
--Cewbot (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Only reason the person got some coverage is because he is from Bangladesh, reader loves seeing this type of news. Anyway, all of the sources are basically interview (also for some reason text are almost identical), primary. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with আফতাবুজ্জামান's analysis of the sources, and have removed six of them to reduced the WP:CITEKILL. The remaining four dated 26/27 November are the same story repeated in different outlets with minor variations. Per footnote #4 of WP:GNG, they count as only one source. Of the remaining four sources: findglocal.com is user-generated content (see "How do I add my listing?"[8]) so not reliable; two are author profiles at news outlets where he has published stories, so not independent; and one is his Google scholar profile, which is indiscriminate and doesn't demonstrate notability as a journalist or academic. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if can. First of all, sorry for adding a few links where similar news is published again and again. Wordbruce you removed a few links (thanks). Apart from online portals on his Journalism, Becoming an Imam/Khatib and biography are also mentioned in printed paper (can't link). Also Wikipedia has articles of this type. "Check it out" [9]. Is there any way to keep it without deleting it completely? Templates can be used if needed. Equivalent to the opinion of the experienced. Ontor22 (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Ontor22's decision. CastJared (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ontor22's decision? I should also note, all of the sources are from 26 & 27 November 2022. I am unable to find anything after that or before. Looks like temporary one-time coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I suggest to Oppose and instead, Strong Delete. CastJared (talk) 22:44, 28 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. Aoidh (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific American Library[edit]

Scientific American Library (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 was a redirect until recently. The topic is adequately covered in the Books section of the main Scientific American article but an attempt to restore the redirect has been reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is already sufficient. There are also articles of the same type like
--Htmlzycq (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the block-of-text list of titles in the main Scientific American article unhelpful, but I like the links to notable authors in the new article. Would it be appropriate to replace the text in the main article with the better text from here? Or would that make the main article too large, or give this undue weight? Incidentally, the rest of the book section in the main article could do with clarification too: is the single bulleted item the output of the 2010 publishing imprint named above, or a third, separate venture? Elemimele (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this, listing topics like this is not very helpful.

    The Animal Mind; Atmosphere, Climate, and Change; Beyond the Third Dimension; Cosmic Clouds; Cycles of Life • Civilization and the Biosphere; The Discovery of Subatomic Particles; Diversity and the Tropical Rain Forest; Earthquakes and Geological Discovery; Exploring Planetary Worlds; Gravity's Fatal Attraction; Fire; Fossils and the History of Life; From Quarks to the Cosmos; A Guided Tour of the Living Cell; Human Diversity; Perception; The Solar System; Sun and Earth

    In contrast, listing books and authors is more convenient to access.
    But according to Scientific American Library | LibraryThing, at least 70 books need to be listed, which is too large for the main article. Htmlzycq (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid split from the parent article. This article is big enough to stand alone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On grounds of list size it seems a valid content split. As the article stands it doesn't come across as informative presentation-wise as nothing in the lead paragraph sets out reasons for the order in which the books are listed, but that's for a separate discussion. The nominator hasn't directly mentioned notability, but under WP:SPLIT this article is required to pass notability guidelines. My understanding is that the series would need reliable, independent sources commenting on/reviewing the whole series or at least a part of the series, not just the books individually and I'm not sure content in the links provided by Cunard sufficiently does so. Probably more out there but I've found little, so reserving judgement. Rupples (talk) 23:40, 21 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 no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DWGA-TV[edit]

DWGA-TV (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)

Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These should be merged into one mass AfD. You can't expect people to reasearch and comment on every single one, but the resulting lack of attention will skew the results towards deletion regardless of merits. small jars tc 09:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello small jars. The references for each station need to be evaluated, regardless of whether the nominations are separate or combined. It is possible that the situation will differ for some of the articles, so merging all of the nominations together could muddy the waters. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be true that each article would be examined individually in an ideal world, but please consider merging if the majority of them haven't been commented on (excluding parrots) after a week. small jars tc 15:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The notability of this TV station appears to be supported by other references on Wikipedia, from non-english language sources. (See: Tagalog entry for GMA network) Jack4576 (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 14 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. If it is no longer a populated place, that can be reflected in the article via editing. Aoidh (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy, Iowa[edit]

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

This is not a named place in any meaningful sense. According to Google Maps, the location is part of Altoona, Iowa. The county website makes no mention of the place, but notes a few plats in the area with names such as Ivy Knolls. There is a church in the vicinity with "Ivy" in the name, but that church's website says it is in Altoona. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to google maps it is actually its own location: Ivy, Iowa on Google Maps PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I went off of. Also the fact it was on List of unincorporated communities in Iowa LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be creating articles based on Google Maps and unsourced lists. Both trace their origins to the GNIS database which is known to be full of erroneous entries. –dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GNIS is a government site PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which means that the data is not erroneous, as it is maintained by the government. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PaulGamerBoy360, this is dead wrong. See WP:GNIS for errors in this database like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington. It regularly incorrectly classifies locations as populated places, and many populated places are not actually notable communities either. Reywas92Talk 13:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
acording to wikipedia gnis page it says that homesteads and ranches and farms are not populated places, bu they are as people live there. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, kid. The USGS has actual definitions that match actual usage (one family's house or ranch obviously shouldn't be classified the same as a full populated settlement) and a populated place is "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." A homestead is considered a locale, which is "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill)." The GNIS's feature classes are regularly inconsistent with more accurate feature classes used in National Gazetteers, and they still do not establish notability or provide useful information to base an article on alone, even if Google Maps draws their labels from it. Reywas92Talk 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We need to determine whether it was ever a named place. Once notable, always notable. This report from 1891 indicates that a woman who made prize-winning butter lived here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep on the above basis Jack4576 (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Named" does not automatically mean "notable". This place doesn't appear to be (or ever have been) officially recognized, and available sources are passing mentions rather than SIGCOV as required be GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think it says it's in Altoona for postal reasonings. LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Ivy is low, but the part about it not being mentioned on the county website makes no sense because 1. It's not incorporated and 2. There isn't even a single other unincorporated community on that website either.
If we can find more information on its founding then then it's a keep, if we can't find any information within a week or 2, then, It would be fine to delete it LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep I am finding traces of this which seem to indicate it once was a small town. It had a post office in 1900, and a 1918 business directory lists a smithy and a general store. There's also a state census from 1885 which lists it as a town. If you take a street view drive past on the old road, there's the remains of a couple of businesses and the church. Looking athte aerials, what happened was at at some point in the 1960s someone decided that the road needed to be widened to four lanes, and for whatever reason they decided to swerve slightly south at Ivy, literally obliterating the entire southern side of the town, where older aerials show maybe a dozen buildings. I have to imagine that searching in the right local paper would probably find something about this, but newspaper searching is not a strong point for me. But I'm pretty sure that Ivy was a town in the past of which a bare trace remains, largely in the name of the church. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I drove by it and actually into it the other day. Some houses and a church on a small road. As you found a source that it had a post office. But no buildings with the exception of the church looked like it could be a post office, making the southern part being removed a very reasonable thought and making it as small as it is now LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've found more info, where it had a post office in 1900, was listed in the state census in 1885, and a business directory in 1918. It also had a southern part of the town that was removed sometime inbetween 1955 and 1972 when Iowa 163 was extended to a 2 lane highway LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So i would say keep (I might be a bit biased due to me creating this page) LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or leaning that way, or at least create mention in Altoona article and redirect to there. No signup required, you can access historic newspapers at Newspaper Archive (and maybe also at Newspapers.com?) via https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/?next_url=/users/my_library/ (where you simply login to use a Wikipedia Library card).
  • First hit on search of newspapers in Iowa with Keyword "Ivy, Iowa" that I check is: Homestead Newspaper Archives October 1, 1897 Page 6 (perhaps you have to be connected in for that link to work) has article "Horticulture at the Iowa State Fair" which includes at least two mentions, as home location for two persons who have seedlings or other submissions in the fair.
  • Official notice given in Altoona Herald Newspaper Archives June 29, 1972 Page 10, for bids for construction of a Junior-Senior High School, 8325 N. E. University, Ivy, Iowa, for the Southeast Polk County Community School District, Ivy, Iowa. Proposals are due to the office of the secretary of the Board of Directors, 9070 N.E. University, Ivy, Iowa. The word "County" is included in the 1972 notice; this would appear to be what is now covered in Wikipedia as Southeast Polk Community School District.
  • Numerous mentions of persons "of Ivy, Iowa" in blurbs whose full articles I haven't visited.
--Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Automatically notable as a former populated place. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the contention is that this used to be a named place (and that that is sufficient to have an article), I don't object to this being closed as "Keep". However, in that case, the article should be edited to make that clear. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree with that LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 17:35, 21 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuma's Corner[edit]

Kuma's Corner (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:NOTPROMO. Perhaps draftification is an WP:ATD here? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that this article needs improvement, not necessarily draftification but some toning down of promo language. Based on search results I added additional links regarding a 2020 controversy - this isn't exactly WP:BALANCE but it does tend to counterbalance the promotional tone. I might go back and tweak the breathless praise later. These guys get a lot of national coverage. In fact WP:CORP suggests non-local coverage of controversies as possible significant coverage. Oblivy (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spent a few minutes reducing promotional language; I think it's better now. Oblivy (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The most egregious WP:PROMO I have ever seen. If that was removed, there would be nothing left. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional tone is not a grounds for deletion, as long as the article has encyclopedic content. You might want to look at WP:G11 which says that if a subject is notable it's not suitable for speedy deletion even if it's promotional in tone. That's perhaps why @MrsSnoozyTurtle suggested WP:ATD draftify. This article is heavily sourced from reliable independent media, and it contains negative material which is not a characteristic of blatant promotion. Oblivy (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My position remains unchanged. Delete or TNT. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify There's definitely enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, however the article is very promotional in tone and language. I would be willing to change my vote to keep if said promotional issues are fixed. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JML1148 Kindly have a look at it now. Per above, I don't see promotional language as grounds for deletion (or draftify) on a properly sourced article that isn't blatant promotion and meets notability. At this point, it may be a bit over-sourced (lots of "best of" citations, which establish notability since they are largely national media, but they get in the way a bit) but I have done what I have the time/attention to do for now. Oblivy (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oblivy: I appreciate the changes that you've made that have toned down the promotional changes, so I'm willing to change my vote to Keep. I'd say maybe the second paragraph in the History section could have a bit of work? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate this. I took a brief swipe at it and took out one piece of puffery, but I think I'm done with this article for now unless someone else comes in and adds back a bunch of breathless praise. Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JML1148 - do you need to strikeout one of your !votes? ResonantDistortion 15:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, I forgot to do so earlier! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources to meet notability, and article content and tone has been improved by Oblivy. ResonantDistortion 10:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our notability guidelines. The problems with promo are covered by our policy: WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 20 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorus pentaiodide[edit]

Phosphorus pentaiodide (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)

Clearly not notable, nor any reliable claims of existence. Keres🌕Luna edits! 05:53, 14 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 as lacking multiple sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juned Mohmed Patel[edit]

Juned Mohmed Patel (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)

Subject seems to be related to a few notable politicians, but doesn't meet WP:NPOL himself, and notability is not inherited. PROD was contested. Recommend Delete -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: without engaging in an evaluation of WP:POLITICIAN, SIGCOV is met based on a collective assessment of references [5] - [10]. Notable Jack4576 (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that what does and does not constitute significant coverage can be hazy sometimes, but this and this are so obviously not sigcov that I seriously had to question whether we were looking at the same news articles. Curbon7 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of them can fairly be said to be SIGCOV, my assessment was collective. Acknowledged that those ones you've linked are mere quotes and / or passing reference Jack4576 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sigh, why is my name at the top of this article. Has previously existed in draftspace-hell at Draft:Juned Patel before being cut-and-paste moved to mainspace. Curbon7 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, this has previously been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juned Patel. Curbon7 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that time he had not enough refrence.Currently he have.see he have references like Rajasthan Patrika Ahmedabad mirror, Dainik Bhaskar, quint Hindi etc... BootTPP (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep : his refrence , his privious offices and Media coverage and organisations show's. enough. BootTPP (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First-and-foremost, this reeks of clear WP:COI editing. An SPA whose only edits in all 6 months they've been here is to this article/draft. As for the sources themselves: 1 is clearly not reliable, 2 is just an organization leadership page, AGF on 3 and 4 due to the language but they're very short so I don't imagine they say much, 5 6 and 7 are just the same short quote repackaged, again AGF with 8 9 and 10 due to language but they are again so short I don't imagine there is much in the way of significant coverage. This "article" is just a vanity project to promote the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You told about refrence 3,4,8,9,10 are short.for your info sentence word's matter. Obove mentioned other languages reference that are reputed media in Gujarat. BootTPP (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the Google Lens app to translate the non-Eng sources; 3 is just a very short sentence that he received congratulation for getting a position (not sigcov), 4 is a statement by him advocating against child labor (not sigcov), and 8, 9, and 10 are just short quotes from him advocating for various political positions in his capacity as a party official. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would highly recommend Salting of this title and Juned Patel by the way. The socking surrounding this subject is really becoming frustrating. Curbon7 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I just noticed that Juned Patel has already been salted for two years. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clear sockpuppetry in the history of the deleted contributions on Draft:Juned Patel and so I've blocked this user along with a few others. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadupatel looks to be the account based on that history. Izno (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Juned Mohmed Patel is Authentic Dynasty Politician. His organisation website and organisation side refrences shows enough. I can't understand why Wikipedia's writer removing Congress party leader's Wikipedia article.In Last 2 months they Removed article of aiswarya Mahadev , saral Patel (hi) ,and others and currently Juned Patel.All those are National and state's reputed and Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.6.10 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — 103.247.6.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep  : Juned Patel have State Office and Dynasty Politician relative of MLA Ibrahim Ali Patel. Refrence of organisation website and other news of department side shows also authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.54.51 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) — 103.247.54.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Given this attempt to subvert the discussion process, I suggest this IP's not-vote is appropriately discounted by the closing admin. Grachester (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Subject is a public spokesperson, sources in article are mainly statemetns made by subject in interviews, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. Additionally their is a self published bio, and routine news announcements. Source eval by Curbon7 and BEFORE done by others above show nothing, and the keep votes present nothing that meets SIGCOV. 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  16:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Tossing out the sockpuppet Keeps, the only basis for keeping advanced is a "collective assessment" based on sources the editor concedes are not in of themselves SIGCOV. This is an argument for 0+0+0+0+0=53, and plays no part in any notability criterion. This is a plain GNG failure. Ravenswing 01:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    actually its an argument that: 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 = 1
    and it is an argument compatible with SIGCOV policy, as written Jack4576 (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL, he's not elected to any post but just nominated in some inter-state party posts. Moreover, he is not connected with Ruling party of the state. Other than this, people here are continuously adding comments and i can see Jack4576 writers than 0.25 four times make 1, but you should have an Notable subject to say this. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the sources in the article are not impressive at all. Translating their content, all I can see is non-notable statements, and a Google search reveals no reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources. And again to Jack, SIGCOV is not determined collectively. SIGCOV source = 1, while a non-SIGCOV source = 0. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have yet to substantiate your bare assertion that SIGCOV cannot be established by an evaluation of multiple sources in combination; with any reference to policy. Yet you repeat the mantra constantly. Jack4576 (talk) 05:52, 22 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 14:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linlang (2023 TV series)[edit]

Linlang (2023 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)

Linlang (2023 TV series)

This is an upcoming television series that has not aired yet, and is too soon to establish television notability. The article does not discuss significant coverage by reliable sources because the only coverage is advance publicity, which is not notable and may be promotional. There is also a draft; the draft was copied into article space by the draft originator to create the article. A draft is in order, because the show will be aired, and there will be reviews. This article should be deleted, and the draft left alone to wait for the show to air. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:
  1. too soon is not policy
  2. it is not an issue that the articles used in reference are promotional, so long as they are being used appropriately in support of NPOV claims, as appears to be the case here. WP:PROMO is a policy purposed at preventing WP articles that are themselves promotional, and the tone of this article as written is not overly promotional here; to the extent that it is, it is salvageable
  3. I am satisfied that SIGCOV re: this upcoming series has been established by a collective assessment of these three sources
Jack4576 (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Jack, you've made numerous keep (or so you put it, oppose) votes with shaky reasoning that doesn't necessarily comply with policy. Yes, WP:TOOSOON is an essay, but it's basically the shorter way of saying that there likely isn't enough sources to be notable because whatever it is hasn't happened yet. This is similar to a lot of essays that are used in deletion debates; they're used to save time typing.
WP:SIGCOV outlines that articles need to have at least two pieces of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." With the three that you have highlighted, the first is too short (i.e. not significant) and the other two contain a large amount of interview (i.e. not independent) The claim that "it is not an issue that the articles used in reference are promotional, so long as they are being used appropriately" is outright false, it is flies directly in the face of the "independent of the subject" part of SIGCOV.
I would recommend reading policy properly and basing !vote arguments around policy in the future, before making !votes that contradict policy. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The essay's thesis that "there likely isn't enough sources to be notable because whatever it is hasn't happened yet" isn't relevant to my comment above, because my comment above was claiming that the references contained within the article are already enough to support notability to the SIGCOV threshold
2) I agree with your assessment regarding that the: "first is too short (i.e. not significant) and the other two contain a large amount of interview". Nevertheless, the deficiencies in these sources I think, is able to be overcome by a collective assessment of them all together. More than the sum of its parts, etcetera. In any event, such an assessment is clearly a subjective one, so I'd ask you to refrain from claiming that my reasons are contradictory to policy when clearly they are written to comply with policy.
3) It isn't an issue that articles are promotional in tone; plenty of media reporting uses positive/excited language to describe incoming programs to their readers, even when that reporting is independent of the show being reported on. I don't think it would be fair to assume the articles are advertising or that there is a commercial relationship going on here; so I think it is fair to see them as independent, while being fluffy and excited in tone. With that in mind, a judicious editor may be able to use those articles as a source for reasonable and defensible claims about a subject Jack4576 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was explaining what the essay is used for, as a shorthand for a certain type of article, rather than what is actually meant by the essay. Also, I've noticed numerous !votes that you've made regarding a "collective assessment" of sources for WP:GNG, which isn't how that policy is written. It's made clear in the first sentence that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No strange "collective assessment" of sources, mashing together multiple sources that all clearly fail WP:SIGCOV, which isn't how that policy is interpreted. Sources that are promotional in nature cannot be used for sourcing, as there are just too many issues with them, as they will often use WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASEL to make things sound better than they are and ignore things that are bad. I guess some very experienced editors would be able to extract the truth in the content, but this is a notability discussion, not a content dispute, and sometimes these sources say things that are plain false. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is a flexible enough concept that it can be constructively reached by a combination of multiple other independent sources; that aren't sig cov individually
Whole more than the sum of its parts, etcetera Jack4576 (talk) 09:22, 15 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 merge‎ to Christiana Mall. Content has already been merged here. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Christiana Mall shooting[edit]

2023 Christiana Mall shooting (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 shooting that resulted in no fatalities and only a few injuries. Any details about the shooting can be covered in a section of the shopping mall article. Dough4872 03:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: SIGCOV exists through the collective coverage provided by CBS, Fox, and Yahoo Sports, already linked. Merging the full details of this shooting to the Christiana Mall article would cause undue weight issues Jack4576 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would we care about coverage of a mall shooting from...Yahoo Sports? Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 14 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. Consensus is clear. As for the numerous suggestions to rework, please do have at it. BD2412 T 03:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific nicknames in popular music[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Honorific nicknames in popular music (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 thing is an absolute mess, a hodgepodge list of anything a music publication or blog might have put in a headline, that may include the words "king," "queen," princess etc. and then again may not. It's unclear what an "unambiguous, objective" set of selection criteria (WP:LISTCRIT) would even be here to winnow this down in a meaningful way. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I agree with the nomination, and like Ivana said, the list is WP:FANCRUFT. There is no actual encyclopaedic use of this list. If someone wants to find out who was best selling artist/legend/respected in particular genre, then they can go to the genre's article. If someone wants to find out nickname of some particular artist, then go that that artist's article. This is an unencyclopaedic, unnecessary, fancruft list. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article has been up for deletion several times under other titles, although all of the nominations were in 2008 or 2009. See Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music under "Article milestones". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A lot of these nicknames are dubious as being recognizable nicknames. As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination): "The problem is that if one is trying to establish that a musician is known by one of these honorific titles, a single citation is not enough to do that. A phrase isn't the musician's nickname unless the musician is referred to by that phrase numerous times, not just once or a few times. And this article doesn't differentiate between titles supported by long-standing usage and titles applied by a single writer in a single article." If you saw a headline that said, "The Greatest Album of All Time Belongs to the King of Pop", you probably would know who it was about. "The Greatest Album of All Time Belongs to the King of Rap", you wouldn't. "Rousing tribute to Queen of Soul", you probably would know who it was about. "Rousing tribute to Queen of Pop", you wouldn't. That's because "King of Pop" and "Queen of Soul" are indeed titles associated with particular artists, and "King of Rap" and "Queen of Pop" aren't so associated. In fact, there are 4 different artists listed as having the nickname "King of Rap", and 13 different artists listed as having the nickname "Queen of Pop", in this article. Basically, if lots of people have a honorific nickname, then probably it isn't recognizable as being the nickname of any one of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a flaky assemblage of fancruft tied together with some wobbly thinking, some glossy images, and a bit of fast talking. Nothing to do with encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many of these are actually widely used nicknames vs just one-off appellations? Sure CBS News said of Garth Brooks, "The king of country music is making plans to retire" but a search for "King of Country" brings up George Strait (also on the list), Elvis, Johnny Cash, and others. Selena Gomez is apparently the "Dance-Pop Princess" but the source juse uses that in lowercase as a descriptor and a search doesn't bring up widespread usage as an actual nickname. Per Metropolitan90, this list is useless. Reywas92Talk 20:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It definitely looks full of non-notable, one-off descriptors, yet obvious ones like the Waltz King and the Fab Four are missing.
If we decide to keep it, I suggest having an explicit inclusion criterion such as requiring at least 2 unrelated sources referring to the musician using the same nickname, or the nickname being a redirect to the musician's page (e.g. King of Ragtime). The goal would be to limit the list to recognizable nicknames which are actually widely used; such a cut-down list arguably has some encyclopedic value. Perhaps the items which fail the criterion should be left commented out for some time, in case they're legitimate and someone finds more sources. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In theory I agree with this. It's just not clear what that inclusion criterion would be. Writers will throw all kinds of things into headlines, so even requiring two sources won't necessarily distinguish between actual widely used nicknames and tossed-off commentary. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rework; It is useful for people who might be searching terms like "Princess of Pop", but as some other people said, it's very bloated. Some of the nicknames are very random like Taylor Swift as "The Music Industry" Tantomile (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor's fans actually refer to her as The Music Industry very often, I've never heard America's Sweetheart though... Edenariel721 (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - also, Category:Nicknames in music exists for those nicknames which are redirects. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rework – I agree that this needs to be massively cut down to only super notable/widely used ones, but deleting it altogether wouldn't be the move, I feel, as a reasonable-length article is much easier to navigate for the average (non-editor) Wikipedia viewer than some bloated category would be. Also, the casual browser who is just trying to access a reference for famous nicknames in music history might not even know how to access a category (as opposed to an article) altogether. Even if they do, they would be unable to distinguish which nicknames are considered more famous or important than others just by looking at a longass list of links (i.e., a category page). Furthermore, I agree with the above comment that we should have a definitive criterion for inclusion on this reduced list for the reworked version of the article. CitizenKang414 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Kitrsjlhf (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rework - as per above, there are loads of broadly used nicknames (and not just by fans) for artists that could be useful to compile. I doubt a random browser is going to somehow end up on a category page and use that to index the nickname to an artist. Maybe a minimum of sources could be enforced? Wanidumalinga (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is getting endless and extremely bloated. It seems like everyone in the showbiz today is Queen and King (which is absurd) and we don't need another WP:INDISCRIMINATE list just because a media outlet calling some musician a Queen/King of something. Also, I personally find it funny when editor vote for "rework" but doesn't give any significant edit to this article. Bluesatellite (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. The selection criteria is fine, and everything is pretty well-referenced, at least for one-shot references. It wouldn't be a bad idea to require multiple sources, but that's not a concern for AfD. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "pretty well-referenced, at least for one-shot references". As I see it, it's the nicknames that have only been used one time that are the big problem with this article. If this list stuck to common nicknames like "King of Rock and Roll" for Elvis Presley, or "Godfather of Soul" for James Brown, the article might be facing a lot less criticism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Derp! Sorry, I meant for "multiple-use" references. Indeed, if multiple sources were required, the list wouldn't have quite so many entries for snappy nicknames that a single author used just once. But that's something for the article's talk page, not a deletion discussion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm changing to Delete. After re-reading the article and thinking about the context of the draftify discussion, the inclusion criteria is not established and the de facto inclusion criteria seems too weak. Maybe there's some kind of "list of music nicknames" article, but this isn't it just now. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: 'List of Honorific nicknames in popular music' would be a more appropriate title for this article as written, which I think is otherwise fine Jack4576 (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a pile of WP:FANCRUFT that fails NLIST. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the fancruft essay is not policy, fancruft has not been banned Jack4576 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article isn't encyclopedic, seems to have a promotional angle and as someone above has mentioned this falls into INDISCRIMINATE. It's becoming extremely bloated and a lot of the entries are only because some media outlet called a musician the queen/king/etc. of some particular genre. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is it promoting? Musicians generally ? ? ?
    Jack4576 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems rather promotional towards the individuals listed. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it should be reworked. I think the quality of the prose portion could be improved. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after a major rework: The article is currently far too bloated and I agree with Ïvana that if it's kept then it would be beneficial if some clear rules were implemented for the article, such as multiple reputable sources per entry. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rework, I think readers have found this article interesting with an average of 70,000 monthly views, therefore it can be beneficial if this page is kept. At the same time, there should be clear guidelines imposed on this article that can lower the level of WP:FANCRUFT—perhaps requiring consensus for each entry in order to be added to this page? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 14:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a major rework, per reasons by @Kind Tennis Fan and also to make the prose much better. Possibly organize by genre, move to List of honorific titles in popular music, include more relevant information, and redo the lead so that the notability and "necessity" for this article is much more obvious. OfTheUsername (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have just separated the "group and collective names" into two different sections -- one for nicknames given to groups (such as BTS being called "The World's Biggest Boy Band"), and the other for collective nicknames given to multiple artists (such as Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Prince being called the "Holy Trinity of Pop"). In my opinion, most of the collective title nicknames are even less credible than many of the nicknames listed in this article for individuals or groups. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rework - Yes, there are were non-credible nicknames and "titles" on the page, and this obviously needs to be corrected. Notability is not an issue, as some titles are very real and used widely. I agree with my fellow editors here in that the page needs reliable sources and to be watched for any promotive material and for it to be speedily removed in the future.
BurgeoningContracting 12:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment If the result is keep, I also agree a major clean up should be necessary. Eg: limit those unnecessary nicknames (some artists, especially "divas" have even 7 or 10 nicknames alone, or redundant ones, see Ricky Martin). Perhaps a limit of 3 examples per individual should works. Major nicknames, including "Queen of Soul", "King of Pop", "Goddess of Pop", and "Queen of Pop" have a plenty of artists with that attribution... "Queen of Soul" and "King of Pop" are particularly ignored by users-fandoms, but there exists more artists with that attribution beyond current examples both in print or online sources. I'm wonder if the article could be divided? as there a lot of obscure acts, Honorific nicknames in popular music (A—J) and (K-Z)? just ideas. I'm not oppose to completely delete the article. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with maybe a very limited scope to merge a little of the prose elsewhere. The list is not one of "honorific nicknames". It is just a load of descriptions from various sources. Some of them are promotional descriptions invented by record companies. Some are casual descriptions by journalists. Many are duplicated. I mean, I think we have no less than six "godfathers of punk" here, some vastly more credible than others in that claim. I see no encyclopaedic value in the list at all. It is indiscriminate and needs to go. That does not leave enough for an article on the alleged topic of honorific nicknames in popular music although maybe it can be mentioned briefly somewhere else, presumably in an article about the marketing and/or promotion of pop music. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it's a notable subject. As a new page reviewer, I go through a lot of redirects, and this page ends up being the perfect target for a surprising number of them. I find this to be, essentially, a large disambiguation page and I think if it gets deleted we'll end up with dozens of disambiguation pages to take its place. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It definitely seems like a notable topic, but the article needs work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Josh and WP:DELETIONNOTCLEANUP. A rework would be fine for this notable topic. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article might wind up being kept, in circumstances where most of the "keep" recommenders have indicated that it needs to be reworked. If so, I hope that the reworking actually takes place, which would probably require the criteria for inclusion in the article to be tightened and explicitly stated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The promised reworks almost rarely take place, in my observations. I wonder why the process doesn't draftify articles that were nominated with "Keep after rework" votes so that they can be deleted until they really are reworked. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still favour deletion but I think this is a reasonable proposal if the article is to be kept in any form. It should not be allowed back into the article space until the entire list is removed and the prose turned into a minimally adequate article, which it isn't at present. I have grave doubts that that is even possible, hence my Delete !vote, but if anybody is going to attempt this then it should be done in the draft space. DanielRigal (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a conversation about this approach on the article's talk page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rework The subject is notable, but it needs rework and clean up and maybe new policies to limit the titles. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is a very interesting read. Fun, even. But…man…is it a mess, varying widely in both legitimate and dubious entries. That’s because despite the good intentions by whoever created this article, the wikipedia standard criteria for these kinds of lisst allows an entry to be verified by a single reference. Thus, all it takes is for a single writer published by an RS to refer to a performer by a nickname, and—viola! Proof, per Wikipedia standards, that it’s a verifiable honorific, even if that name is largely unfamiliar and unused by the rest of the world. The entry/reference for Tyler Childers is a good example, which seems to be based on a Rolling Stone article title rather than any proof that he is widely known as “The Voice of Appalachia.” That’s just one example, I don’t have the time or inclination to check the sources for this entire list! Fixing this list requires a very specific criteria to be created that uses a much stronger threshold. I doubt “keeping and fixing” as many editors are voting will result in the changes needed. I advocate blowing this up and starting over, which would result in fewer entries….for the better. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the purposed guidelines are too vague and are not going to be universally agreed upon. Who dubs the nickname? Why would one nickname be valid compared to another? Plus the best starting point is a sandbox. My advice is delete and if a editor disagrees, then build the structure in a Sandbox setting create the article with the guidance in place and examples and let it grow with structure that most good articles do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: While the list is in need of reworking, the subject itself (that is, "Honorific nicknames in popular music") is notable. —Matthew  / (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article itself is notable, even if it needs a cleanup a good proportion of the nicknames are accurate, checks of names to remove those without multiple, reliable sources that show long-term, common usage can occur over time. Happily888 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the principle that these are legitimate titles given by actual reliable sources… not fans… and that it helps to keep them all in one place. Trillfendi (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article needs some work. But overall notable subject/s per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very notable because there are lots of great artists which received these honorific nicknames in lots of publishments and it can be of great use for readers who want to know more about this. Would be a shame if this page gets deleted. Coldbolt (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very notable page, especially the world-famous moniker the King of Rock and Roll for Elvis Presley. Maybe delete some obscure nicknames which are only used by die-hard fans but if a considerable amount of people use the nickname, I don't think it's fancruft. RomanHannibal (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - can be expanded, see WP:MERGE. Just because CURRENT doesn’t entail deletionism is warranted. SITH (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our WP:NLIST guideline. There are legitimate titles. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rework: I suggest leaving only the deceased on the list and delete everyone else I don't care how famous (ex: Madonna) they might be. Osw719 (talk) 22:22, 26 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. WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E rationales haven't been rebutted. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Sheehan (Survivor contestant)[edit]

Tommy Sheehan (Survivor contestant) (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)

Notable for winning Survivor: Island of the Idols, no doubt. Unsure whether suffering from concussion and then being medically disqualified from The Challenge: Spies, Lies & Allies makes him also notable. The EW piece is just an interview with the article subject and more of a primary source than secondary. Same with the EW questionnaire, where he announced his retirement from reality TV. The Distractify article just recaps the primary source, an episode of The Challenge where the concussion occurred, and cites the EW questionnaire just to announce news about his retirement from reality TV. IMO None of these sources verify his independent notability. (Well, his concussion was heart-wrenching, and I don't mean to offend it or downplay it or be insensitive about it.) The sources can prove that he's, in an existent manner, more than just a Survivor winner, but I just don't see how these sources make him more notable. But the sources and notability, including (in)substantial coverage, are not just the issues I'm raising.

The article's compliance with WP:BLP1E and/or WP:BIO1E and/or WP:NOT is what I'm more concerned about. Furthermore, I'm concerned about this person's compliance with WP:NACADEMICS, i.e. his notability as a schoolteacher. I just couldn't find one reliable source contextually verifying his notability as an academic or a schoolteacher or a school district employee. How this person won the Island of the Idols season can be already explained in the season page. How this person was medically disqualified can be already explained in one of The Challenge season pages. IMO The article should be redirected to either Survivor: Island of the Idols or List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sheehan violates WP:BLP1E, being solely notable for winning Survivor (even then, some would doubt if that even counts), but sourcing is poor on the subject, mostly being interviews, and notability as a teacher is non-existent. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. he is most known for winning Survivor 39, but he has made other media appearances which warrants a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheeseistalking99 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To which other media appearances besides Island of the Idols and The Challenge were you referring? How is The Challenge sufficient to save this article from redirection? George Ho (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is he professionally an actor, a celebrity, or anything else? He appeared in just two television shows and no other, and his Survivor win was his only significant role. He didn't contribute much to the entertainment field. George Ho (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. I wouldn't classify a reality show contestant as an actor, nor under anything else that would fall under WP:NACTOR. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: So, if he had only won survivor, I'd agree he doesn't meet the guidelines per BLP1E, but having another television series appearance (as much as that's over only 3 episodes) tips the balance for me. I agree it's a tight one, but there are at least a couple articles on the refs that show he's had some significant coverage due to the Survivor win. WP:NACTOR #1 seems like a reasonably low bar to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, he also meets WP:NBASIC, making WP:BIOSPECIAL inapplicable. Right? George Ho (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply made at Lee's talk page. George Ho (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: All right. I'll clarify my question. You said he meets WP:NACTOR (barely?), and now you mention GNG in your talk page. From what I can tell, you think he also meets GNG. If that is the case, does that mean he also meets WP:NBASIC, which is what an individual like Sheehan is supposed to pass? I did mention WP:NBASIC because it's required for any individual person to meet. NACTOR is just one of additional (optional?) criteria, and he didn't have to meet NACTOR if he meets NBASIC sufficiently. I also mentioned WP:BIOSPECIAL because that one says that standalone articles of those meeting only at least an additional criterion (like NACTOR) but fail NBASIC may be unsuitable for this project. I just would like to ask you whether you think BIOSPECIAL applies. George Ho (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bgsu98: Same question(s) that I lately asked Lee (about NBASIC and BIOSPECIAL). George Ho (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: Oh, and doing other things... may not save the article after all (unless proven worth including in this project). Bob Crowley did post-Survivor activities, but that didn't prevent the article about him from being redirected. George Ho (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree in that it's borderline, however I would interpret WP:BLP1E as an article that would only meet notability guidelines for one thing. Because Sheehan wouldn't meet said notability guidelines for just being a contestant in The Challenge, it falls foul of it. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: via Lee Vilenski Jack4576 (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Meets BLP1E, sources with SIGCOV are all related to the 1E. Brief mentions and listings about other subjects do not demonstrate notability. Keep votes BEFORE hasn't yielded any additional sources outside of the article and seem to be based on dismissing BLP1E.  // Timothy :: talk  08:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Plain BLP1E case, and I agree with Timothy that the counterarguments seem based around ignoring BLP1E's validity. Ravenswing 01:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in light of BLP1E. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:46, 22 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N.V.R Educational Institution[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although, (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to local Rayagada Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in covering some locations...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet GNG or SNG SIGCOV requirements.
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires deletion, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral detriment to this website's wider mission and purpose
Jack4576 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't pass WP:NSCHOOLS; I disagree that this would help improve representation of Indian topics, since random private schools with zero notability are a dime a dozen in India and are probably the least worthwhile way for us to cover. AryKun (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete: As above and nom. User4edits (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a primary source provided. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:34, 20 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Mathematical Society[edit]

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

Entirely primary sourced, zero evidence of meeting WP:NORG. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the nominator hasn't outlined their WP:BEFORE process undertaken prior to this AfD, which must include a search for local and offline sources. I'd be willing to change my vote if this can be explained Jack4576 (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reasoning as the comment I left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Institute. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply asking the nominator, (or somebody else) to provide assurances that they have complied with WP:BEFORE, before I am willing to cast a delete vote. Can you provide assurances that you conducted those searches JML1148 ?
The nominator has yet to do so. Jack4576 (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the same reasoning as the reply I made regarding me conducting a BEFORE search myself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Institute. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep for lack of adequate WP:BEFORE", without citing any sources yourself to back up the claim that I failed to find them, is nothing more than a form of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and should be given little weight. Unlike, for instance, what David Eppstein did below and actually found a source that I had missed and actually made me seriously think about withdrawing this nomination (which I won't do - I'll let it run to give others a chance to find and evaluate sources). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asserting that there must be sources.
I'm just asking whether or not before a deletion occurs, process has been followed. Don't see what's wrong with that.
There is a reason editors usually provide deletion reasons that discuss WP:BEFORE Jack4576 (talk) 09:20, 15 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 for reasons of insufficient coverage. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bedi[edit]

Sarah Bedi (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:NACTOR. References are extremely poor as is the article. Almost WP:TNT in nature. Lots of passing mentions but no real coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 08:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Actor, writer, director with a long list of performances in reputable venues. Had a role in a play directed by Pinter. Nominated for an Offie in 2011 for directing Macbeth.1. --
Jaireeodell (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on the basis of criterion #1 of NACTOR having been met, due to the performances pointed out by Jaireeodell Jack4576 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appearing in a cast and being nominated for an award, doesn't make you notable. Lets look at the references:
Ref 1 [14] It mentions a Sam Bedi but I don't see Sarah Bedi mentioned. Passing mention at best.
Ref 2 [15] States Sam Bedi again. Passing menton at best.
Ref 3 [16] Non-RS.
Ref 4 [17] Passing mention.
Ref 5 Facebook and Twitter are non-rs.
Ref 6 [18] Profile on theatre production site. It is a profiles and is not in-depth nor independent.
Ref 7 [19] 404'd
Ref 8 [20] 404'd
Ref 9 [21] 404'd
Ref 10 [22] 404'd
Ref 11 [23] 404'd

Four passing mentions, 5 404's, 2 non-RS's and a self-written profile which is WP:PRIMARY. Doing an illustrative WP:BEFORE on the AFC reliable sources search on Google CSE finds:

Ref 1 [24] Passing mention.
Ref 2 [25] Passing mention.
Ref 3 [26] Passing mention.
Ref 4 [27] Passing mention.

There isn't even an interview on the subject. As a director, Bedi has zero meaningful coverage to warrant an article, that is WP:BLP. It fails WP:SIGCOV. It Passes WP:V probably but that is best you can say on it. scope_creepTalk 11:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources explained above are about as much as there is, and it's all non-substantial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was credited as "Sam Bedi" because the production wanted to hide the fact that she was a girl, but I think Pinter's brief comments are enough to matter. I used the Internet Archive to fix the 404s. I think a review of a play that she wrote or directed is a valid confirmation of notability, even though it doesn't discuss her at great length. And I added some other references. I think that this all adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Scope creep's fantastic source review made it pretty clear that this article fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since you have updated the references, it is worth examining them again. I will do the first two blocks.
  • Ref 1 [28] The same reference above. Two lines. Passing mention at best.
  • Ref 2 [29] one line. Passing mention at best.
  • Ref 3 [30] Non-rs.
  • Ref 4 Simon Gray Key Plays, page VIII I can't identify it, but as its in the introduction, it is either a profile or a passing mention at best.
  • Ref 5 [31] Passing mention. Its a list of names with no context. It is also non-rs.
  • Ref 6 Facebook. Non-rs
  • Ref 7 Twitter. Non-rs
  • Ref 8 [32] WP:PRIMARY. Passing mention.
  • Ref 9 [33] IMDB style listing at BFI. WP:PRIMARY
  • Ref 10 [34] 404'd
  • Ref 11 [35] 404'd
  • Ref 12 [36] A review. Single mention. Passing mention at best.
  • Ref 13 [37] 404'd

So this time, several references have been updated by Eastmain to effectively show they are either a primary references, or passing mentions. Of the two blocks, 13 refs where you expect to find some of substance, we have 6 passing mentions, 3 404'd and 3 non-rs and a primary reference that is a listing. There is no substance to these references. This is a WP:BLP. Real WP:SECONDARY sourcing is needed and its absent here. scope_creepTalk 09:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval by scope creep above shows there are no sources from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. 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  16:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Scope Creep's extensive analysis. Ravenswing 01:32, 22 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. Significant coverage demonstrated from multiple reliable sources. GNG demostrated to be met. Therefore consensus by strength of argument is keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sarver[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Sarver (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)

Absolutely fails WP:NSINGER; previous AFDs in 2009 were squirrely at best... Seriously, look at them. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The 3 (!) AfDs in 2009 all seemed to be based on WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual policy, and it's pretty clear now that this person isn't notable. Fails WP:BLP1E, having done not much of not after American Idol, and all of the sources fail WP:SIGCOV in one way or another. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Person Has Significant Coverage PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SIGCOV exists establishing this persons notability under GNG. Notability is not temporary
Futile nominations where a significant amount of referenced coverage exists should be avoided. In particular the York Dispatch, USA today, and Associated Press articles grant specific attention to this subject. Please refrain from these kinds of nominations. Jack4576 (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack4576: Rather than making pointless keep votes, could you please actually read the links and comment based on policy? The AP link doesn't work, and the other two are largely composed of interviews, which fail WP:SIGCOV. I would also request that you read some of the other comments that I have left regarding your votes. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had already opened and read the USA Today link, and the York Dispatch link prior to my vote. The AP link I was able to retrieve at this archive.
The York Dispatch article is not in any sense an interview. Did you bother to open it yourself before writing the above ? Jack4576 (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment that the articles: "grant specific attention to this subject" is a topic that directly engages with policy, as it is part of the reason that I think it is fair to assess that these articles as collectively amounting to significant coverage. How could I have made myself more clear ? Jack4576 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AP link is now working for me, and that's definitely mainly interview, and the York Dispatch source, although definitely not an interview, (not sure why I wrote that?) is quite short and promotional in tone, not saying much besides where you can listen to a song, what it's for, and a list of other people. However, I'm willing to change my vote to Keep due to the archived sources that Cunard found. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've looked at the sourcing, the York Dispatch is ok, rather small. USA Today seems fine-ish. I'd prefer one better source and two iffy ones. Still a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources

    1. Guerra, Joey (2009-12-12). "Roughneck-turned-musician releases single". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "The former oil-rig roughneck from Jasper finished 10th earlier this year on American Idol, good enough for a spot on the summer tour but not exactly a breeding ground for long-term careers. ... Sarver got a big leg up this week with the release of You Are. He wrote the feel-good country ballad, and it's a preview of his forthcoming debut album, set for a spring 2010 release via Dream Records/Universal. The song was issued simultaneously Tuesday with uptempo B-side Cinderella Girl. Sarver is the only contestant outside season eight's top four to currently have original music available. ... Musically, Sarver's pair of songs stick closely to the confines of modern country: soaring, sentimental and slick. Rascal Flatts with more soulful vocals. A kinder, gentler Keith Urban. And neither song would sound out of place on a Carrie Underwood album."

    2. Kragen, Pam (2009-07-20). "Idol chatter: Five American Idols open up about life on the road". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Big, ebullient and courteous, Michael Sarver is a man with a lotto say. The 28-year-old Texan puts many of those thoughts into hissongs -- 902 at last count, and of those, 23 chronicle his journeysince his “American Idol” audition -- but on this afternoon hewants to talk about Lambert. Sarver’s a strong Christian (his tour costume is a white coat with large cross insignia over his heart) with conservative views and he’s taken some heat for anti-gay comments he’s made in thepast. But Sarver wants fans to know that spending the past few months rehearsing and touring with the openly gay Lambert has changed him. ... The former oil rig worker is a married father of two, and talking about his far-away family is usually too difficult for him."

    3. McGrath, Kristin (2010-03-12). "Season 8 Where Are They Now? Michael Sarver". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "For Michael Sarver, turning a 10th-place finish into a record deal (he signed with Dream Records/Universal Music Group in December) boils down to one thing: hard work. ... Sarver, 29, will be releasing a country album (which he is recording in L.A. and Nashville) in spring or summer. The lead single, You Are, is available on iTunes, and next single Ferris Wheel is out April 27."

    4. Peveto, Kyle (2010-07-25). "Homegrown talent - 'American Idol' finalist gives SE Texas first listen of debut". The Beaumont Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Sarver worked up his hometown, working man appeal throughout the free concert and autograph session Saturday afternoon. Backed by a full band with three guitarists and two backup singers, he appeared on stage wearing a plaid shirt and mesh gimme cap. His opening song from his new album, "Watch Me," is told from the perspective of a small town guy whose "dreams stretch far beyond the county line." Born in 1981 in Sulphur La., Sarver married Southeast Texas native Tiffany Smith six years ago and settled in Jasper. Sarver's self-titled album from Dream Records comes out Tuesday, but he had 400 to sell to fans at Saturday's appearance."

    5. Moore, Sarah (2013-05-16). "'Idol' alum Sarver confident Kree will win". The Beaumont Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Besides the bond Sarver has with Harrison as a former American Idol contestant - a bond he says all the contestants share - the two met years before either of their careers began, when coincidence or fate brought Sarver to Harrison's parents' Jasper-area home to lay carpet. ... Sarver put out a record under contract with Universal on the basis of his own American Idol performances and now is working on a second, independent album, with all of his own songs."

    6. Rueda, Lluvia (2009-02-20). "Sarver's secrets - 'Idol' contestant: Recession, Simon might have helped lift him into the Top 12". The Beaumont Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Vocal talent, dollops of Southern charm, and an extra sliver of votes helped Michael Sarver make it into the Top 12 on "American Idol" this week. ... After two emotional, roller-coaster days this week, the 27-year-old, former oilfield worker and his two Idol colleagues, Alexis Grace and Danny Gokey, shared their concerns and hopes about their personal lives and upcoming episodes in a national conference call."

    7. Franklin, Mark (2010-11-06). "CD Spotlight: The 'Ferris Wheel' that never started spinning". The York Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-03-22. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "During his American Idol exit interview, Michael Sarver said he had already written more than 800 songs. The 10th-place finisher from season eight serves up six on his 14-track self-titled debut CD, which was released in July.  Haven’t heard much about it? Well, it peaked at number 58 on Billboard’s country album chart. And the album’s lead-in single, “Ferris Wheel,” never got spinning."

    8. poet, j. "Michael Sarver Review by j. poet". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The review notes: "When Sarver slides up to falsetto on the chorus, he sounds really sexy. "Cinderella Girl" has a dark bluesy vibe, but it's a tribute to the passion between a husband and wife that the years can't extinguish. "You Are," the one tune he wrote on his own, is a solid, simmering song with a soulful vocal. The rest of the material sounds like Nashville product, a collection of clichés with serviceable but unexceptional melodies. The exceptions are ..."

    9. Franklin, Mark (2009-12-08). "Michael Sarver: From the oil rigs to iTunes". The York Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-03-22. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Michael Sarver, the former oil rig worker who finished 10th on season eight of Idol, released a single today on iTunes. ... That page also features a video of Michael signing with Dream Records, a division of the Universal Music Group. ... Right now, Michael’s also involved in an “American Stars in Concert” tour, also featuring ..."

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

    Cunard (talk) 01:48, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_14&oldid=1157393776"