Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

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. ✗plicit 07:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Shehzad Khan[edit]

Sonia Shehzad 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)

Notability was not shown or illustrated, nor were reliable sources provided. BoraVoro (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 77 followers on Twitter and not much else, so clearly non notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 25 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! 23:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dime Store Magic[edit]

Dime Store Magic (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)

Same as Broken (Armstrong novel). No non-independent sources, with the exception of a WP:SPS review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources

    1. The sources found in pburka (talk · contribs)'s excellent research.
    2. Chin, Kristin L. (2004-05-21). "Book reviews for May 20: SF/Fantasy: "The Child Goddess," Louis Marley; "Monument," Ian Graham; "'Dime Store Magic," Kelley Armstrong; "The Lion of Senet," "Eye of the Labyrinth," Jennifer Fallon". Davis Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The review notes: "Armstrong's novel suffers from an all-too-common problem: lack of focus. The author couldn't decide on a drama or a comedy. Some lines are genuinely laugh-out-loud funny, and they're intercut with moments of sickening horror. Both work in and of themselves, but they clash in the same single narrative: two distinctly different styles, as opposed to random sentences that happen to sound a bit different from the novel's main tone. ... Had all the characters been well conceived, or had the tone leaned more toward being exclusively comic or tragic, "Dime Store Magic" would have squeaked by with a good rating. As it is, the novel is marginally below average, and therefore mostly for fans of witchcraft tales."

    3. Folsom, Robert (2004-05-16). "High-flying terror in the unfriendly skies". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The review notes: "A writer who is doing better is Kelley Armstrong. Dime Store Magic (414 pages; Bantam Spectra; $6.99 paperback) furthers Armstrong's Women of the Otherworld series. Following Bitten and Stolen, Dime Store Magic reintroduces Paige Winterbourne to readers. Paige is now eligible to succeed her mother as the leader of the American Coven of Witches, but not if her enemies can get her out of the way. Armstrong has improved at incorporating themes of magic with elements of supernatural sensuality."

    4. Lypchuk, Donna (February 2004). "Dime Store Magic". Quill & Quire. Vol. 70, no. 2. pp. 33–34. EBSCOhost 69194850. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The review notes: "Despite these well-worn themes and sometimes trite characters, Armstrong manages to forge an intimate relationship between the reader and Paige, who comes across as a likeable, contemporary gal. It might be most correct to describe Dime Store Magic as chick lit masquerading as a novel of supernatural fiction."

    5. Dutton, Renee (2004-06-20). "Fantasy has many forms and facets". Times Colonist. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Dime Store Magic portrays witches with endearingly human traits. It's refreshing to come across a writer in this genre whose characters struggle with real life problems as well as magical ones, concerned with such mundanities as laundry and homework. Fans of Armstrong's previous novels, Bitten and Stolen, will likely enjoy Dime Store Magic. Although the third novel in the Women of the Otherworld series, Dime Store Magic can stand on its own. Those unfamiliar with the series would be well advised to keep Dime Store Magic in mind. It is a light, entertaining read."

    6. Freeman, Dawna (2004-02-22). "Witches, demons brew up some fun". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Armstrong's novel moves at neck-breaking speed to a spellbinding conclusion as witches, sorcerers and a spiteful half-demon take this custody case into their own hands. Readers who enjoy the genre will find this a light thriller with little character development, a decent smattering of supernatural lore and plenty of dime store magic."

    7. Davidson, Don (2006-03-10). "Mystery and adventure books with a supernatural twist". Whitehorse Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "There are fights, car chases, romance and lots of tension of all kinds. The book was a bit of fun, for all that it did remind me a lot of an episode of Charmed."

    8. Sasvari, Joanne (2004-03-27). "Art from the dark part of the heart". Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Kelley Armstrong must have decided one day to throw every genre she could imagine — mystery, horror, supernatural thriller, romance and chick-lit — into her writerly cauldron. What she conjured up is the hilariously hip Women of the Underworld series."

    9. "Dime Store Magic". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 255, no. 34. 2008-08-25. p. 68. EBSCOhost 35371572. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The audiobook review notes: "Luckily, Laural Merlington is well versed in Armstrong’s style of writing and breathes freshness into this story. Her reading is entertaining and uncomplicated, making this otherworldly tale believable."

    10. "Dime Store Magic". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 251, no. 13. 2004-03-29. p. 44. EBSCOhost 12682604. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.

      The review notes: "As in Armstrong's debut novel Bitten , this story's special strength lies in its seamless incorporation of the supernatural into the real world. A convincing small-town setting, clever contemporary dialogue, compelling characterizations and a touch of cool humor make the tale's occasional vivid violence palatable and its fantasy elements both gripping and believable."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:26, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BarBurrito Canada[edit]

BarBurrito Canada (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. Although there are many locations like the article says, there is not much media coverage showing why BarBurrito is actually notable. Also, the affiliated American restaurant Burritobar isn't even notable enough and doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. 747pilot (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sourcing in the article is actually better than what I could find [1], still nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 24 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 23:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey & Ballot Systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Survey & Ballot Systems (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)

Written entirely by a user seemingly employed by the subject of the article, cites 0 sources and I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG. ULPS (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. No indication of meeting WP:NORG. Jmertel23 (talk)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note there is also a Draft:Survey & Ballot Systems, containing the same unreferenced promotional text. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncited; no attempt to comply with WP policies on sourcing. Kablammo (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A COI article whose draft should have been left to await AfC review. Leaving aside the promotional nature of the present text and its lack of references, the AfD on the previous instance was 14 years ago so this merits a fresh look. The previous AfD discussion indicates that some sources had been found at that time, however, now even more than then, the requirements regarding pages on companies are strict, and searches are not finding evidence that this firm has attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the article was significantly re-written to comply with WP:NPOV, I am still not convinced that it would meet the WP:ORG notability guidelines for a company. JoshuaGrayy (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched the online archives of the Star Tribune to see if there was any coverage, and I found only one or two articles that mentioned the company to any significant extent. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG -- Devokewater 14:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG aside, this type of conflict-of-interest article creation is required to use AFC. The article clearly does not meet their standards, and there is a separate copy of the article which is already a draft. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:43, 29 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. Participants determined that the sources do not provide in-depth significant coverage about the restaurant to established notability. ✗plicit 23:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Borkonyha Winekitchen[edit]

Borkonyha Winekitchen (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)

Lack of independent coverage in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Hungary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Michelin review is RS. Andy Hayler appears to be a professional reviewer. So does the reviewer for Offbeat Budapest. The Amberlyn Suite Hotel is probably not an RS. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the sources do not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The Michelin source provides no information that that is not trivial or incidental coverage, and it provides no deep or significant coverage that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. This is relatively obvious due to the fact that no part of it can be used in a Wikipedia article (meaning it's entirely trivial).
Michelin source:

This unassuming-looking restaurant sits not far from the Basilica, and while its traditional dining room may not promise all that much, to pass it by would be a mistake. The kitchen here sources top-class ingredients, treats them with the utmost respect and allows them to shine. Subtle Hungarian influences run throughout dishes which are well-conceived and skilfully executed, and have a notable intensity of flavour. Wines are key here too: they offer 100 labels, including around a quarter by the glass.

The Andy Hayler source is a WP:Self-published review posted on his website (too long to write down here) and also consists of trivial coverage that does not prove there is "deep or significant coverage," focusing mostly on the food and insignificantly on the actual venue, it's history, it's current operators, a neutral account of its cultural significance, etc. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Hungarian Wikipedia has an article on the restaurant's executive chef (hu:Sárközi Ákos), which appears to include some Hungarian language coverage of the restaurant, I don't speak Hungarian, however, and so am unable to evaluate the sources properly. From a quick search I found a full length piece in Reuter's about the head chef [2], and I found a few other bits of coverage, e.g. it has an entry in CNN Travel's list of top Budapest restaurants [3], it appears in eater.com's list of top Budapest restaurants [4] and it also gets a mention in the new york time's "36 hours in Budapest" [5]. I would be surprised if this restaurant really isn't notable, given that a Michelin star is one of the most prestigious awards in the restaurant industry. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of the sources in the chef's Hungarian Wikipedia article focuses a bit on the restaurant 1, but even that's an interview that is made up entirely of the chef's comments, making it very WP:PRIMARY and not WP:INDEPENDENT. This other article in Hungarian refers to him being a "Michelin-starred chef," with no actual comments or coverage of the restaurant. All the other sources in the article focus on the chef. The English-language sources you've linked to here fail WP:SIGCOV. The restaurant isn't notable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this [6] fails WP:SIGCOV. While it is partly interview questions there is also a significant amount of reporting there. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source focuses entirely on him, the chef; "Borkonyha" is mentioned only once in the text of the article. It doesn't focus on the restaurant. Just because he works at the restaurant doesn't mean the restaurant is notable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but have you actually read that article or are you just doing a ctrl+F? There are multiple paragraphs in that piece that directly talk about the restaurant, the entire piece is framed around him getting ready for service at Borkonyha and the entire focus of the piece is his style of cooking which won him the Michelin star. How on earth is coverage of the food and Chefs not focused on the restaurant? 192.76.8.86 (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I said the English-language sources fail SIGCOV above. Reuters' coverage is trivial, and doesn't go in depth. "The stylish bistro, opened nearly four years ago, serves about 150 diners per night and could barely keep up with a surge in demand since receiving the posh award in March, the third restaurant to be recognized with a Michelin star in Budapest." That is the only part of the article that mentions the restaurant other than the interview answers (which are not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject). This isn't enough to establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH, which states that there must be in-depth coverage of the restaurant, not a minor mention. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] It's useless for CORPDEPTH as an interview. The statements come from the chef. The only coverage of the restaurant there that counts is "The stylish bistro, opened nearly four years ago, serves about 150 diners per night and could barely keep up with a surge in demand since receiving the posh award in March, the third restaurant to be recognized with a Michelin star in Budapest." —Alalch E. 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly one of a series of "Michelin star means notability" articles created by Jack4576. A Michelin star can be taken to strongly indicate that there is some significant coverage, but doesn't guarantee it. There's no irrebuttable presumption of notability of this sort. All of the sources that I'm able to find on the internet fundamentally fail WP:CORPDEPTH. —Alalch E. 23:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Nythar and Alalch E. The coverage is patently trivial and and it's all in WP:NOTGUIDE territory anyway. XAM2175 (T) 02:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbcom has ruled that articles containing stupidity such as The plates at the restaurant have been described as "colorful", and "artistic" are automatically presumed to cover nonnotable topics. EEng 11:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the imaginable policies. Today we have all Michelin restaurants, tomorrow we'll have all places ever mentioned in any Lonely Planet guide, and so on, endless. To better illustrate the notability bar, let's keep in mind that the community decided to delete an article about a USD 5-billion Nasdaq-listed global corporation with 28,000 staff members and offices in 80+ countries for being non-notable.[7] — kashmīrī TALK 13:40, 25 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spotify Global 200 number ones of 2022[edit]

List of Spotify Global 200 number ones of 2022 (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)
List of Spotify Global 200 number ones of 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Individual charts on Spotify are not notable in their own right and songs that reach number one on them are not regularly discussed in independent sources. And, as opposed to Billboard and other national or global charts, there is also a concern of these being supplied by a single vendor rather that a true amalgamation. An account of streaming activity on Spotify is better served by List of most-streamed songs on Spotify. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wanna bundle in List of Spotify Global 200 number ones of 2023 while you're at it. That one has more sources that the 2022 list but those sources don't look particularly reliable at a brief glance, and even so it recreates the same single vendor issue. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the single vendor problem. You could add as a chart in a more general page, like the years in music pages
Carolina Heart (talk) 19:16, 30 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yann Hubert[edit]

Yann Hubert (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 about former footballer who made a single substitute's appearance in Ligue 2 and which utterly fails WP:GNG. The best coverage I could find was a paywalled match report covering his only professional football appearance - which appears to be routine coverage. A sticky PROD was removed without adding any reliable sources that would plausibly contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete by an Admin per WP:G11.‎. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mr Broken Heart Music[edit]

Mr Broken Heart 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)

Contested draftify x2 (first by User:BoyTheKingCanDance then secondly by User:UtherSRG, both times the creator reverted the move). No significant coverage presented and none found in a search; only unacceptable self-published stuff like SoundCloud and Issuewire, which count for nothing. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 24 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. No point in keeping this open any longer. Number 57 11:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Racist Soccer League in the World[edit]

The Most Racist Soccer League in the World (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)

Should be deleted as per User:JML1148 Appears to be exclusively the opinions of the page creator. Unfit to be on Wikipedia, but I don't think it comes under any of the CSD criteria. The PROD was removed during a hijacking of the article, which I have since reverted. Article violates WP:NOR and WP:SOAPBOX as the article creator is clearly using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their own point of view. We already have Racism in association football but I don't believe that this would be a plausible redirect so would prefer outright deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Football, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, Spain, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This won't work as an article unless someone reliable comes up with a ranking. Right now it's original research, and probably not very reliable research either. Besides, the problem isn't with the leagues themselves as much as with horrible fans. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SOAPBOX - surely there must be some speedy category that this nonsense can be deleted under.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously - the work of someone who knows so little about football that they do not know how to spell the names of three of the world's leading top divisions. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc. As a matter of fact, it's difficult to find a Wikipedia policy or guideline that this doesn't manage to violate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a terrible article it should have never been written. Catfurball (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR and arguably as a potential legal issue. Suspect that WP:SNOW will come into play here... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously. This is clear OR and soapbox behavior. Could be closed now as WP:SNOW I think. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everyone in this talk page. This looks like the person who created the page, created it as a hate page MagoLass (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as purely opinion per WP:NOR and other delete recommendations above. Maybe the article creator should create a different list -- albeit not as a Wikipedia article -- of the least racist soccer leagues to give football organizations something to aspire to and an accomplishment they could potentially be proud of. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this even a question? If WP:SNOW was is an essay for AfD, so that would apply here. Apologies. I've only seen WP:SNOW used at RfA, so I assumed it's only for use there. But this works here too!‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 01:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are horribly racist soccer leagues for sure (I pretty much stopped following Serie A because of their non-action), but we shouldn't rank them based on one person's unsourced opinion. Nate • (chatter) 01:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the reasons above. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems like pilling on, but this just has to go! --Bduke (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surely there's a CSD criterion this could go under? Blue Edits (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closest imho is WP:A11 Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that this piece of blatant original research was created in response to the recent treatment of Vinícius Júnior by many Valencia fans. That incident was despicable, but I'm sure that there are equally despicable events affecting less illustrious players at smaller clubs in many leagues. They just don't get the same publicity. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yikes. Delete per above comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fully concur with the nominator's reasoning. While racism in sport is a serious subject, this article would not work as a Wikipedia article, not least due to subjectivity and original research issues. Dunarc (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research. Is it SNOWing yet? Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolute nonsense. GiantSnowman 20:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trollery. Snow this shut. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 27 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, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Zamkaft[edit]

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

I cannot find a single source, reliable or otherwise, that mentions "Lake Zamkaft". Even the solitary source cited in the article (which is a dead link to an unreliable source) doesn't mention it. I'm leaning towards "deliberate hoax" on this one. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Geography. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps it is not supposed to be a physical place. I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Perhaps someone who knows more about Islam will be able to clarify this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eastmain: I am a Hafiz, and yet I have never heard of anything even close to this. I hope someone from the wikiproject knows something about it. If it isn't a hoax, it's probably some poorly-attested thing from an obscure Sufi tariqa. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that this is a hoax. Article body mentions a body of water, using some "Barak", flying... none of these things are mentioned at Isra' and Mi'raj. Can't find sources either. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: This article is a hoax. Hoaxes aren't allowed on Wikipedia at all. CastJared (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been hearing traditional stories of Isra and Mi'raj from religious scholars since my childhood days and I have never come across this name. I tried to find an Urdu-language equivalent but miserably failed. I am not sure if anything exists in Arabic language. fwiw, this does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. If anything helpful comes up, I would support a redirect to Isra' and Mi'raj as an ATD. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAafi: I can easily tell you that "Zamkaft" (Arabic: زَمْكَفْتْ؟؟؟؟؟) isn't Arabic. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Festucalex, I am aware of that much Arabic and have studied it to that level. I am talking about that my searches don't bring any result but I am not sure either of something existing on this topic. I am not either saying the word is an Arabic one but I mean to say "the coverage about it". There's apparently nothing that I could find. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:49, 25 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 redirect‎ to Shah Kamal Quhafah. Star Mississippi 16:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Ruknuddin[edit]

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

Very few references, and most of those references only mention his name in a list of other hundreds of disciples. No sign of independent notability. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:32, 24 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 23:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gliere[edit]

Jennifer Gliere (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 musician Jennifer Gliere does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:MUSICBIO. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article needs work - I tagged it as a stub. But she performed for Pope Francis. That makes her notable IMHO. BostonMensa (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a total of six hits in Gnews, most from OperaWire, rest are concert listings. Gsearch is about as barren, RateMyProfessor, LinkedIn, nothing we can use for RS to meet GNG, MUSIC or much else. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable citations found on this one. It can't pass GNG. CastJared (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article has no compelling claim of notability. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 19:54, 31 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. The consensus is that despite currently poor sourcing, the subject is notable and sources could be found. (non-admin closure) Liamyangll (talk to me!) 00:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Post Telecommunications & Information Technology Company[edit]

Libyan Post Telecommunications & Information Technology Company (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:ORG ~TPW 15:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~TPW 15:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The corresponding article in Arabic has multiple references. This is the parent company of a national postal administration and of some telecommunications carriers, so it can be expected to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're not deleting an article about Libya's major telecommunications and postal authority, and two words=a really bad rationale. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but draftify if no citations or sources are added. It is certainly notable enough but needs verification. ww2censor (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs to be updated with sources . -- Devokewater 14:20, 29 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, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Schofield[edit]

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

A few mentions connected with church events and related notices, but no real significant coverage in independent sources. Fails GNG. JohnmgKing (talk) 15:20, 24 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 23:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Granville[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sam Granville (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-league footabller who has never played higher than the fifth tier. No evidence of GNG being met; all sources are either primary or not significant coverage of the player (e.g. match reports where he is mentioned). Article was deleted last year for the same reason, but the recreation is not similar enough to apply WP:CSD#G4. Number 57 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sam Granville is a professional footballer who has signed a professional contract with barnet football club please see reference on the page. 16:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJackson77 (talk • contribs) Please advise what more needs to be done regarding this article. As far as I am aware every single sentence is referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJackson77 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'll say it's disappointing to see an admin, of all people, create an article like this without addressing the reasons for deletion in the previous AfD. I've done my own searches and the best sources that I can find are Bridgwater Mercury (which may not even be about this particular 'Sam Granville' and Plymouth Herald, both being trivial coverage. The SFL reference is nowhere near good enough either. When assessing notability please also remember WP:SPORTBASIC: Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. This rules out most of the sources cited. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spiderone: The creator is not an admin. They appear to have copied my userpage to create their own (after leaving this lovely message) and left the admin category in. I'll delete the category off their userpage now. Number 57 19:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a charming message! People need to realise that there are other websites where people can post this sort of stuff and nobody has a God-given right to post whatever they want on here and not expect others to edit or delete it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the Plymouth Herald one had a reasonable chance of being about him since it mentioned that the game was against Beaconsfield. In any case, the coverage is so weak that it's hard to tell who Sam Granville is from searching online, which is exactly why he shouldn't have an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread it. Yes, that one is him, but it's the most cursory of passing mentions...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Plymouth herald source is. HJackson77 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also tell me the difference between the sources in this article compared to the ones in the article for Reece Beckles-Richards HJackson77 (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a chance to find alternative sources to the current ones please. If club websites and league websites are not good enough for some reason then I will attempt to put things right. Only trying to create a wikipedia page for a professional footballer who I know personally. HJackson77 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to familiarise yourself with WP:COISELF: "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly". Number 57 09:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spiderone's decision. CastJared (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but can I vote delete with a possible COI?? Govvy (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What COI do you have? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: Hmm, I know the family, live in the same village, went to the same school! Didn't know he had an article on wiki know. :/ Govvy (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've ever seen two disclosed COIs at a footballer AfD! Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has multiple sources, and has more info than a lot of other articles. Thomediter (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer that this appears to be a revenge !vote from an editor who I am currently having a dispute with. Number 57 22:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per above source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 13:04, 30 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Dos Reis de Freitas[edit]

Juliana Dos Reis de Freitas (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)

Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:28, 24 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. ✗plicit 14:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Pan (professor)[edit]

Jennifer Pan (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

Subject certainly does not meet the WP:GNG, but I am not seeing where they meet the alternates of WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR either. A Senior Fellow does not seem to be a qualifier. Zaathras (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Her book, Welfare for Autocrats, is certainly notable (per WP:NBOOK), having been reviewed in multiple reliable sources. pburka (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep The article was submitted to AfC and was kicked back. Last night it was moved back to draft by LilianaUwU as it 1) is not ready for mainspace 2) the person who keeps moving it to mainspace has a history of moving articles from draft to mainspace and they get moved back again for various reasons 3) this article came from another users draft space 4) For one book they did five citations of which only two are reviews and 5) they introduced a lot of cs1 errors in the article that have to be fixed by hand. She doesn’t meet WP:NACADEMIC. While her book Welfare for Aristocrats does seem to have some weight behind it [1] and a few others. I do lot see them meeting any criteria of WP:AUTHOR. The citations listed next to the book in the article are mostly abstracts of the book and to purchase them / not acceptable as sources (I removed them and editor added them all back). Based on evidence submitted below by an administrator showing the citations and such (I do not understand the back door thing) but I have changed my statement to keep.2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jiang, Min (October 2022). "Book Review: Welfare for Autocrats: How Social Assistance in China Cares for its Rulers by Jennifer Pan". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 27 (4): 971–974. doi:10.1177/19401612221102056. ISSN 1940-1612. Retrieved 24 May 2023.
  • Keep. One well-reviewed and notable book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR notability by itself, but her high citation counts on Google Scholar [8] are easily enough for WP:PROF#C1. The history of new-page-patroller violations of WP:DRAFTIFY in an attempt to backdoor-delete this is also not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DE. Between the book and two >1000 citation papers she meets WP:NPROF. AfC is not mandatory and AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. pburka (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per David Eppstein and Pburka. --Jayron32 17:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Eppstein Thanks for fixing the ref I couldn’t remember what the coding was. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP and I agree with David Eppstein and Pburka. CastJared (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — The subject of the article is a professional acquaintance (but not WP:COI) and contacted me after someone emailed her about the ongoing AfD. I agree that the subject easily meets the WP:NPROF#C1 bar based on citations and impact. I asked Dr. Pan for a list of potential press publications discussing her and/or her work with the idea that that might be useful for ongoing efforts to improve the article. She sent me quite a few pieces in high quality reliable places. I copied all the links onto Talk:Jennifer Pan (professor). —mako๛ 19:44, 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 merge‎ to Falsettos. ✗plicit 14:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Falsettos on the United States[edit]

Impact of Falsettos on the United States (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)

Much of the information covered in the article is already contained within the Falsettos page. The article itself seems to be largely an essay, and doesn't appear to be particularly necessary to exist in its own right DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the Falsettos article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ssilvers. A lot of the information in this article already appears in the main article about the musical, so not that much would need to be added in case of a merge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I see no valid reason to have two articles on this topic. Rogermx (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The article was created by Meghane2 as one of the Wiki Education student editors of Brighan Young University for the Fall of 2020. They have not edited Wikipedia since. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge yet more student essay cruft. We really need to somehow find a way to both get student editors to write properly and speedy-cull essay hosting. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 31 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 Socialist Equality Party (United States). ✗plicit 14:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Socialist Equality Party election results[edit]

List of Socialist Equality Party election results (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)

These results have not received significant attention from reliable independent sources, which is hardly surprising as they didn't result in any wins or even came close. The article creator posted a number of sources on the talk page, but the only one to even mention results was this local source, though only briefly, about one candidate who got five votes. Fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis George Wall[edit]

Francis George Wall (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 person seems to not meet notability. I was able to find an except from an autobiography of his reprinted in "Salt Lake City: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 1964" here, but other than that and an nomination for a place on the NRHP that originally was partially built by Francis George Wall (that place being Glenwood Mill in Glendwood, UT). It did make it on to the NRHP, but there it is called Joseph Wall Grist Mill (after his brother Joseph). While the NRHP listing page for it here does list Francis as a builder, I don't think these two combined are enough to pass WP:GNG, but there also might be better sources to find notability for this individual that I cannot find due to not knowing where to look. TartarTorte 13:09, 24 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 redirect‎ to Nutriskwela Community Radio. ✗plicit 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DXNG-FM[edit]

DXNG-FM (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)

Was redirected using the same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYNG. Was restored without a single in-depth source about this station. Searches show mentions, but no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect as per above. All the cited sources are either trivial mentions or primary source. Lacks enough coverage to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:28, 25 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Haimerl[edit]

Deniz Haimerl (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)

Created presumably because of the old WP:NSPORTS rules, but I can find no significant coverage whatsoever. And yes, of course he's still young, but a year of sporadic play for Augsburg II doesn't really scream imminent Bundesliga breakthrough to me - and even if it did, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:56, 24 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 12:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koegathe Rabithome[edit]

Koegathe Rabithome (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 about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only information we have about this footballer is from statistical databases; we don't know when or where he was born or what he did during his footballing career besides playing less than 20 minutes in a single international match. Sticky PROD was removed without adding any plausible SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather delete than redirect to the national team as he isn't mentioned at the national team, so the redirect would confuse the reader. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:04, 25 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 Castlevania characters#Soma Cruz. ✗plicit 12:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Cruz[edit]

Soma Cruz (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)

Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astaroth (Soulcalibur), despite being a GA article, the sourcing standards have increased and the article clearly lacking WP:SIGCOV. GA criteria have no bearing on notability. It relies mostly on trivia passing mentions, thus failing WP:N. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Castlevania characters. Even Google Books or Google Scholar does not come up with much - does not appear to pass WP:GNG, with entirely trivial coverage. Most of the article is just quotes or reviews of the game itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: As per above. This whole thing looks a little crufty to me. There seems to have been a migration of Wikia editors to Wikipedia and they're doing their innocent best to turn one into the other. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Best example is this article: Rachel Amber. The afd discussion was controversial. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article List of Castlevania characters has a prose size of 98.932kB; Soma Cruz currently has 8.597. The combined article would be around 18,000 words (granted, some information, citations and so on are almost certainly repeated, but the list is already 16,540 words as it stands). WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that an article over 100kB should "almost certainly be divided", while one over 60kB (which the list already is) "probably should be divided". Would merging the two simply create an oversized article that then needs to be split; if so, would there be a better way to resolve that problem than simply splitting off this character's article again? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the character list's WP:ALLPLOT nature, that is an issue that should be resolved by trimming down the characters to the bare essentials. If it is somehow expanded with actual development and reception and is still too long, it could be further split by game, but that's not really viable with the article in its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:SIZESPLIT, [these kB size guidelines] also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table. Character lists are not ordinarily designed to be read from start to finish---instead, you usually just read the section on the character you're interested in---so reading comfort/understandability is not a major structural concern. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Castlevania characters#Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow - The sources really do not show the notability to justify an independent article. Discounting the 15 or so citations that are simply quotes from the game itself or the ones that are simple database sites like IMDB, the rest are generally pretty trivial coverage about Soma himself. Most of them are reviews of the games themselves, which of course mention the character, but do not go into the depth of coverage needed to actually demonstrate that Soma, himself, passes the WP:GNG. Many others are super trivial mentions that certainly do not contribute to notability. The article size concerns really should not be a problem, because Soma already has a decent sized section on the List of Castlevania characters article itself - there honestly is not a whole lot that still needs to be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most of the reception is about the game than about Soma as a character himself, and trying to look online for additional sources has turned up nothing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:19, 25 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. Star Mississippi 18:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piercey Dalton[edit]

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

No media coverage for this actress. The best is a passing mention in a film review by The Globe and Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Vancouver Film Critics Circle is significant enough that being nominated for its awards counts as a strong notability claim. While I'll grant that there are a few actresses listed in Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film who don't have articles yet, that constitutes an important enough award that every actress listed in it has to be eligible for an article as soon as somebody deigns to get around to it. There can be no such thing as an actress who is listed in that article yet is somehow not notable nevertheless. Inadequacy of sourcing is certainly a valid concern if the notability claim is "she exists"; it is not a valid concern if the notability claim hinges on one or more significant WP:ANYBIO-passing awards. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". She has only been nominated once. Further, almost no media coverage = failure of WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A person does not necessarily have to be nominated multiple times for awards before they're notable: one Academy Award nomination is enough, one Grammy Award nomination is enough, one Juno Award nomination is enough, one Canadian Screen Award nomination is enough, and on and so forth. "Several times" might come into play for the kind of award where it may be possible to source that a person was submitted for consideration, but the adjudicating committee reveals absolutely nothing further until they're announcing the winner, such as the Nobel Prizes — but for an award that curates and announces a shortlist of three, four or five finalists between the "submission of all eligible candidates" and "announcement of the final winner" phases of the process, making the shortlist once is enough, because being picked and named to a shortlist of finalists is already a significant distinction over and above most other peers in and of itself.
And GNG is irrelevant if the person has an inherent notability claim: if an actress going for "notable because roles were had", then obviously they have to be shown to pass GNG, but if they're going for "shortlisted for a major, inherently notable award" then as long as the award nomination is properly sourced any other sourcing problems are for refimprove to worry about, not AFD. This is the same as how as long as a politician is properly verified as having held a role that passes WP:NPOL #1, their article is kept even if its current state of sourcing is otherwise inadequate — the role is important and significant enough that having some information about the person, even if there's not as much as we would wish for, is still mission critical enough that an article in that boat has to be kept and flagged for improvement and cannot be deleted outright.
I'll grant that there are a few people in Vancouver Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress in a Canadian Film who don't have articles yet, but that's only because nobody's gotten around to them yet — there can be nobody whose name is present in that list yet is still somehow "not notable at all" for some other reason. The award is notable and important enough that every actress in its article has to either already have an article now or be eligible to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to them, and there can be absolutely no such thing as "named in that article yet still off limits as an article topic". Every single person named in that article has to be either "already a blue link now" or "will be a blue link as soon as somebody takes them on", with no "this person just can't have an article at all" exceptions. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Film Critics Circle award is not well-known. This is several steps below the Genie Awards, so your claim that one nomination is enough is dubious, to say the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to quantify how "well-known" a film award is or isn't is a mug's game — awards that are well-known in one country can be not well-known in another and vice versa, so trying to quantify "how well-known is well-known enough" is not a useful debate to have at all. Even the Canadian Screen Awards (why would you backdate that to the defunct-for-a-decade Genies?) could be argued as "not well-known", if your baseline for "well-known" hinged on expecting somebody to prove that they were as famous in Argentina or Indonesia as the Academy Awards are, instead of simply whether they represent a significant and noteworthy distinction within their home country; and the César Awards in France could be argued as "not well-known" if you're arguing from the vantage point of India instead of France; and the Japan Academy Film Prize could be argued as "not well-known" if you only concern yourself with how much coverage they do or don't receive in Germany while discounting any coverage from Japan; and on and so forth.
So we don't care about subjective, geolocated opinions on whether a film award is "well-known to you" or not, we care only about whether the award is notable and properly sourced, which the VFCCs certainly are. (It's also the only Canadian film critics association that presents "actor in Canadian film" awards at all — the TFCA and the AQCC both just present one overall "Best Canadian Film" award each and don't adjudicate individual performances within them, which means VFCC is the only film critics association award it's even possible for an actor in a Canadian film to win or be nominated for.) Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Canadian, so your argument doesn't hold water. And to reiterate, one nomination for an alleged "well-known" award, one I can't recall ever hearing about in the media, is not even close to sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this award fills some perceived gap is irrelevant; do your axe-grinding somewhere else. As for why I cited the Genies, those are the ones I actually do remember reading about in the newspapers and seeing on TV. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not grinding any axes, I'm simply stating facts. Trying to quantify how "well-known" is "well-known enough" is not a thing we do (in fact, we have explicit rules against inserting arbitrary cutoffs into notability criteria), precisely because it's too prone to "well, it can't be well-known if I've never heard of it" — so what we do is we follow the sources. If an award has sufficient reliable source coverage to establish it as notable, which the VFCC articles plainly demonstrate that they do, then those sources secure the award as notable whether you've personally heard of it or not — and if the award is notable, then its winners and nominees establish notability by winning or being nominated for it. The cutoff does not require multiple nominations — one Academy Award nomination is enough, one Canadian Screen Award nomination is enough, one Juno Award nomination is enough, one Governor General's Award nomination is enough, one Toronto Film Critics Association nomination is enough, and on and so forth, because these are awards that curate and announce shortlists of finalists between the "consideration of all submissions" and "announcement of the final winner" phases of the process, which means the nomination itself already represents a distinction over and above most of the nominee's peers.
It doesn't matter whether you can personally recall having heard about an award in the media or not — the award's article plainly demonstrates that it has media coverage, which means that if you haven't heard about it that's because you either missed or haven't chosen to consume the media that was covering it. And that's precisely why we don't bog down in subjective debates about how "well-known" people think something is or isn't, and simply follow the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope of getting input from other editors as well as the two contributing to date.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Contrary to initial Deletion nom statement, there is further media coverage (I've added a few references since the Deletion nom). There are even a few more but since they are for work already referenced it seemed overkill to add them on top. A small article is going to have a smaller number of refs. Certainly toward the lighter end of coverage but given there's a few lead roles, with media coverage praise for her performance along with a nomination from notable award, seems worth keeping to me. My first time partaking in such discussion so hope I've done it right. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think the additional coverage added by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck adds up to GNG. Deadline [9] has a mere-mention in a cast listing, Times Colonist [10] is another mere-mention, Flickering Myths [11] coverage of Dalton is limited to the half-sentence [Open House] delivers a thoroughly tedious, uninspired feature debut for filmmaking duo Matt Angel and Suzanne Coote, abjectly wasting the efforts of talented leads Dylan Minnette and Piercey Dalton in the process.. Finally we have Occhi Magazine [12], which at first glance looks like great coverage; except that they're a PR firm and say this about themselves on their website: As practicing artists and creatives, we appreciate the work and value of creatives. We know the importance the creative industries play in society and the social and economic benefits they provide. We celebrate creativity and encourage appreciation for the arts. We provide a tailored service to a wide variety of industry stakeholders, clients, and publicists but also work directly with musicians, visual artists, and creative professionals, building strategic PR and marketing campaigns across all media platforms. So it's not independent and not worth the pixels it's printed on, notability-wise. signed, Rosguill talk 03:10, 1 June 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 12:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV 2 Zebra[edit]

List of programs broadcast by TV 2 Zebra (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:NOTDIR. Unsourced and most programming appears to be acquired programming (and not original). Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 24 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 12:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Desperate Housewives home video releases[edit]

List of Desperate Housewives home video releases (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)

Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Practically all sources reference online retail sites (such as Amazon) in order to purchase media. No sources verify home releases are actually notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:23, 24 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 Road Safety World Series. ✗plicit 12:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Road Safety World Series squads[edit]

2022 Road Safety World Series squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need for a separate squad article for this minor tournament, no evidence this squad article passes WP:GNG or is a valid WP:SPLIT. We generally only have separate articles for major international cricket events like the Cricket World Cup, not for relatively obscure tournaments like this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following article for the same reason (another season squad article for same tournament):

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 12:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Awuor[edit]

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

Contested PROD by an IP. Subject of the article is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 10:12, 24 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 redirect‎ to Shenyang#Economy. Unlikely search term, however due to the topic being covered there and Rosguill's comment about traffic, it might be helpful. If consensus changes, can be handled via RfD. Star Mississippi 16:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development zones of Shenyang[edit]

Development zones of Shenyang (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 created this article 6.5 years ago as a spinoff from Shenyang. Unfortunately, as a non Chinese speaker have not been able to find reliable sources so it remains largely uncited and verifiable. I don't think there is value merging back into the original article due to these reasons. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Condense significantly and Merge. I think it's worth mentioning it a short paragraph with the existing source retained. Unless someone can find Chinese-language sources, there isn't a point to keep this article. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded Jack4576 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oppose merge/redirect as this is an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Shenyang#Economy where there's a segment describing Shenyang's three development zones. The page has received low but consistent traffic over the past year, so it does appear to be of some use. But noting as well that this page arguably qualifies for WP:G7 deletion at LibStar's discretion, as no other editor has made anything other than trivial edits to it. signed, Rosguill talk 02:59, 1 June 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. ✗plicit 12:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Willis[edit]

Cassius Willis (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, WP:BIO, and probably WP:NACTOR. Very few mentions aside from the usual set of websites (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc), no significant coverage. Was in 42 episodes of The Young and the Restless, but seems to h ave otherwise played fairly minor roles. Was an NAACP image award nominee, but I couldn't find any SIGCOV relating to that. PROD was removed by Kvng with the rationale 11 incoming links indicate potential importance. All of the links are from cast lists, with the exception of one from NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Actor in a Daytime Drama Series. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 04:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being in 42 episodes of The Young and the Restless I think is more than enough to establish notability given the prominence of that show. Jack4576 (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the Young and the Restless part seems to have been a major story arc (for what it is, a soap opera) and 42 episodes is major. Rest are bit parts, but he's just above notability I think. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one responded in terms of GNG and BIO. More policy-based opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The responses are in terms of WP:NACTOR. These are policy-based opinions. ~Kvng (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:39, 24 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan D. Mihailovic[edit]

Dragan D. Mihailovic (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)

promotion, Fulbright scholarship - that is not relevant or notable for Wikipedia NortonAngo (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A notable scientist and academic that certainly satisfies not one but a number of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC.
This is the content that is currently missing in the English Wikipedia:
  • No. 1: In the field of VTS, he published a large number of papers with Nobel Prize winner K. A. Müller between 1994 and 2002. With Viktor Kabanov, he published the fundamental theory of high-temperature superconductivity, which is cited as key in the introductory article by Nobel Prize winners J. R. Schrieffer (editor) and K. A. Müller (author)[1]. He has also published high-profile work in the field of nanotechnology, particularly ferromagnetism in fullerene compounds, where he has determined the mechanism for ferromagnetism and has been involved in the discovery and characterisation of nanowires based on molybdenum, sulphur and iodine. By 2016, he had published more than 280 publications in SCI-indexed journals, including 10 in Science (4) and Nature (6).
  • No. 2: In 2021, he was elected as an Extraordinary Member of the SAZU.
  • No. 4: He introduced a number of new experimental areas in Slovenia: physics and chemistry of fullerenes, molecular electronics and physics of high-temperature superconductors. At the Jožef Stefan Institute, he set up new laboratories for short-time spectroscopy, nanoelectronics and time-resolved multiprobe low-temperature ultrafast STM (multiprobe low-temperature ultrafast STM) microscopy. Since 1985 he has been working at the "Jožef Stefan" Institute as a Scientific Adviser.
  • No. 6: He was the President of the Scientific Council of the "Jožef Stefan" Institute from 2010 to 2020, and of the Association of Mathematicians, Physicists and Astronomers of Slovenia (DMFA) from 2016 to 2020. In 2002, he founded the Department of Complex Materials, which he is heading for his fourth term of office. He is the Director of the CO Nanocentre; Centre of Excellence for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies, which he founded in 2004.
Can you please take just 10 minutes to do WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion?
Reference: Dragan Mihailović. --TadejM my talk 09:32, 24 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. This close is without prejudice to further use of this title as a disambiguation page, which was raised after the final relist but not discussed extensively. signed, Rosguill talk 02:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield Preparatory School[edit]

Fairfield Preparatory School (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE and added two references to this previously unreferenced article. It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2018. The citations I have found only verify the fact of the school's existence and that the building is listed, so I don't think this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, Schools, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that I have also nominated the article about the collective the school is part of, Loughborough Schools Foundation, for deletion. Tacyarg (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. The building is listed. If necessary, the article can be repurposed and retitled to Fairfield House, Loughborough, although it is actually listed by Historic England as Fairfield Preparatory School. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Yes, I noted the listed status, which is why I added it to the list of Architecture AfDs - but I think I must be reading WP:GEOFEAT differently to you. I see that "Artificial geographical features ... [with] any other protected status on a national level" are notable, so if the building is an "Artificial geographical feature" it is notable, despite being at Grade II. But I read the following bullet point, "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", as meaning that buildings are not "Artificial geographical features" as discussed in the first bullet point, and that listing does not make them automatically notable. We could consider a Merge to Loughborough to retain the information about the building? Tacyarg (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are. The second bullet point means they may be notable even if not covered by the first. Listed buildings have always been considered to be notable. We do not merge a single building to a largish town. That would be silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now established that the listed building is not the same school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 57 bytes of cited material does not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfectly sufficient if it meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying that—even though currently the only sourced material in the article are the listing grade, headmaster's name, ages, enrollment numbers, and student capacity—the article meets the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)? However, that page says, Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have missed this reference. You also seem to have ignored the fact that the current state of the article is not what's in question at AfD, but the notability of the topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I saw the citation to Historic England; it is (a) only used to cite the school's historical listing, and (b) furthermore containing not but simple statistical information. The current state of the article is currently demonstrating its failure to meet both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you didn't click within the link to get the further information? And I reiterate, the "current state of the article" is utterly irrelevant to the notability of the topic, which is what is addressed at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, actually; as I said, furthermore containing not but simple statistical information. Since I'm assuming good faith on the part of Tacyarg, the current state of the article represents the extent of the subject's notability; if there're more sources by which to meet the requirements of the aforementioned notability guidelines, then they should be added to the article—or at least proffered here for vetting. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you mean by "furthermore containing not but simple statistical information". That is not just statistical information. Once again, this is not how AfD works. Wikipedia is a work in progress. You cannot just assume that "the current state of the article represents the extent of the subject's notability". And it already meets a Wikipedia notability standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in the article are two database records with no information about the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:35, 24 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 16:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StencilJS[edit]

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

The entire article is written from a possibly bias POV and the article is not written as it should be on an encyclopaedia. Not from a neutral perspective and sounds like an advertisement. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 18:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- StencilJS is one of the most popular JavaScript compiler that creates custom element (web components). It is used by companies like Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft, implying that it’s a battle-proven solution.Many third party independent sources have now been added to this page to prove its notability. --Curvasingh (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify- It is possible that this is notable but there is clear promotion and likely COI by the author as mentioned by nom and demonstrated by the above comment from the author. It should be put to draft space until third-parties can add a non-POV perspective. Bensci54 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, I don't think it's ready for prime time yet as they say. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 24 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 redirect‎ to Chenab College Jhang. Sourcing is insufficient for a standalone article Star Mississippi 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chenab College Chiniot[edit]

Chenab College Chiniot (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)

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. BookishReader (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. Government college or private college: they have to meet WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There is already sufficient referencing there for a short and a stub college article...with Punjab Government website and a newspaper reference.Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not enough. BookishReader (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Please explain how you are calling a major Pakistani newspaper source, The Nation newspaper and Punjab Portal, Government of Punjab website "Primary" sources (existing references at the above article)? This college is located in the town of Chiniot? Does not make sense at all !!!...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dlthewave did a source analysis for you on another thread. I'm doing it for you here for this college:
Sources analysis:
  • Jhang Education Trust - this article is about Jhang Education Trust. There is one mention of this college in this article as it is operating under the JET. This is a primary source because JET is owned by the Government of Punjab and the article in question is on the govt website.
  • 4 fall victim to reckless drivers - this is a news report from a reporter (who witnessed the event - secondary coverage will be based on this event) got my point? Here's the quote from the article for AfD participants (emphasis my own):
In the second accident near Chenab College on Jhang-Chiniot Road, a speeding truck (MNB-9995) hit a motorcycle (JGC-2883) and killed one M Kashif and Mother Shameem on the spot. BookishReader (talk) 21:39, 11 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! 22:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances as to their WP:BEFORE process undertaken prior to this AfD, which must include a search for local and offline sources in compliance with the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability
I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances can be provided that these searches were made Jack4576 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search on gbooks, gnews, gscholar, jstor, and Google. Admittedly, I did not go further than 2 pages of search results, but I saw that the results quickly declined in relevance. I found couple of database entries and passing mentions, but there was no WP:SIGCOV. I could not find any sources that indicates that this subject passes WP:GNG. I don't have a Newspapers.com access, so I would be grateful if somebody did a search there. There is also the question of the amount of work that would be needed to restore this article if it was deleted. In its current form, this article is a microstub consisting of one paragraph. I don't think there is much harm if this article was deleted and it was found out later that it was actually notable(which I don't think it is). Carpimaps (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Carpimaps has said. BookishReader (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep !votes are more numerous, but no strong evidence has been shown that GNG is met here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:26, 24 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 11:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chabuk (film)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, one review magzine film information [13] but not reliable AShiv1212 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:27, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Coco[edit]

Violet Coco (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)

as per WP:BLP1E, she is only known for her disruption of the Sydney Harbour Bridge which resulted in lots of coverage in December 2022. Her subsequent trial is related to this event. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am of the view the subject of this article firmly goes beyond BLP1E. A quick Google search would have shown that Coco is continuing to feature in the media for her activism and clearly unrelated to the Harbour Bridge event, e.g. this Guardian Article featuring event in Western Australia. The original incident has prompted a wide-ranging discussion (not just in New South Wales but a number of states) on the right to protest and whether state laws imprisoning someone for doing so are too harsh. Deus et lex (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as article creator) She is notable for at least two events, and I've just updated the article to illustrate that. Also, for WP:BLP1E to direct us towards making this an event article (which is what it does for people notable for one event) the subject would also need to be "a low-profile individual (defined here) and yet she is a "high profile" activist. The multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage prove the subject meets WP:GNG and the coverage is sustained, ongoing, and international in nature, provoking commentary beyond just the event, but about the wider more complex issue of protesting, freedom of expression, public safety etc. CT55555(talk) 23:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BLP1E only applies if all three conditions are met:
    1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - maybe met
    2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - probably not met; she appears to actively seek publicity
    3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - not met; she was central to the event, and the event is sufficiently significant that it's still being written about a year later.
    pburka (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the Protest Law coverage involving Coco is a result of the Harbour Bridge protest, the Protest Law issue is significant in itself. Therefore coverage goes beyond WP:BLP1E.Spinifex&Sand (talk) 05:55, 29 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive Catholic[edit]

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

No reliable sources provided that the subject of the article exists, and I can't find any.

I should point out, while you will find many reliable sources mentioning the phrase "primitive Catholic", all of the ones I've seen are using it to refer to the early Christian Church, not a contemporary movement of "independent Christian congregations", which is what this article purports to be about. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:39, 24 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 12:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viola M. Woods[edit]

Viola M. Woods (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'm finding nothing on this artist in a BEFORE search. There is another Viola M. Woods but with a different birth date who is deceased. The sources are dubious, the first one points to a non-existent journal article, and I can't find anything on the journal name. The second one (Forever Free) I was able to download but it does not mention her at all. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. It seems it has been moved multiple times to different namespaces (according to the creator's talk page). Bringing it here to the community to see if other editors have better luck finding sources on this person and to decide if it should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 03:25, 24 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 03:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Wilkins[edit]

Deborah Wilkins (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)

In a BEFORE search, I was unable to find anything online about this artist born in 1952 - there is another Deborah Wilkins born much earlier but that is a different person. None of the the sources are verifiable, and I'm wondering if it may be a WP:HOAX due to the fact that the first citation does not mention her at all; the second one is an erroneous DOI for a non-existent journal, and the third is about medical equipment in a Emergency Medicine journal that is not about art at all. Nevertheless, she does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Arts, Visual arts, and California. Netherzone (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no real assertion of notability. Someone is not explaining things properly to the students on wikiedu.org/courses/Hunter_College_CUNY/20th_Century_African_American_Art_(Spring_2023) Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure she does exist though. A google search on ""Deborah Wilkins" African-American art -wikipedia" finds stuff, including images of the art (some seem to be the same sites the article uses). Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - When I download the first citation [14] I get an academic journal article, and when I search the article, I'm not finding anything about her. In searching "Deborah Wilkins artist" I find a "Deborah Wilkins - Artist - Self Employed" (on LinkedIn, not a reliable source) but they are an Australian artist, not an American self employed artist, I also find a costume maker, a AKC dog show judge, a real estate agent, a lawyer, some historical engravings of a 19th c. UK woman with the same name [15]. When I search using your terms Johnbod, I find an image caption here: [16], a collectibles site [17], and this, which seems to be an unsearchable book [18] by the same name as the academic journal article who seems to be this Deborah Wilkins, which is hopeful. But I'm not having any luck with the other two citations. I won't object to withdrawing the nom if SIGCOV or notable museum collections are found, or it may be a case of WP:TNT or draftify. Netherzone (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I notice her name is spelled "Debra Wilkins" in the exhibition brochure you link to, not that that seems to produce much more. The book she illustrated is here. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also found that the first reference (invoked 5 times) does not mention Deborah Wilkins at all, and that the second citation is a dead link. I am not finding her in the third citation (Cervical immobilization collars) either. I am not finding anything online to substantiate the information in the article. As noted above, this is class assignment. I see that posting to the main space is a requirement with scant vetting. ProfBlkArt needs to rethink the structure of this course. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the problem with this article and several other from this class is that the students are referencing the academic article "Forever Free": Art by African-American Women, 1862-1980 an Exhibition by Susan Willand Worteck published in Feminist Studies rather than the exhibition catalog Forever Free: Art by African-American Women, 1862-1980 edited by Arna Alexander Bontemps. The catalogue is 214 pages and probably has biographical information on the forty-nine artists included in the show. I will drop another message on the professor's page and the talk pages of the articles where the mistake is made. Many of her students grabbed the first citation that came up in Google. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it seems that this student added citations that maybe mentioned a Deborah Wilkins but not the right one (as with the Medical Equipment Journal citation). It's time consuming for other editors to clean up after students who do not complete their assignments correctly, and personally, I don't think that they should be required to publish poor quality drafts to main space, they should remain in draft space. IMO, there needs to be more oversight from the educational institution or WikiEd. Netherzone (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another non-N bio brought to you by yet another Wiki Ed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viola M. Woods from the same student. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 21:38, 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. ✗plicit 12:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Chiryoku[edit]

Eric Chiryoku (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)

Unable to find sources to support notability. I posted the following review on the article's talk page:

Taking a look at the Chinese version of the article did not reveal relevant sources.

Google Books has a text that is a set of articles written by a Korean music columnist in which Chiryoku is mentioned a couple of times, but not on pages available in preview ... and the text is in Korean, making it rather less accessible.

There appears to be no content in...

  • Internet Archive (texts as opposed to web)
  • Newspapers.com
  • the Gale subsets 'gale ebooks', 'general onefile', 'news', 'the times digital archive'
  • NewspaperArchive

An internet search via DuckDuckGo revealed many references, none of which could be considered reliable sources.

There are potentially South East Asian sources that contain reference to this artist, but I do not have much comprehension or access to those.

User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:53, 24 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 redirect‎ to Actionslacks. PROD contested so ineligible for soft deletion, but no one including the editor who contested the PROD is contesting the redirect. Star Mississippi 16:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too Bright, Just Right, Good Night[edit]

Too Bright, Just Right, Good Night (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)

PROD was removed (though the editor who removed it has "no objection to redirect" so take that as you will) but I still don't see notability here. As I said in my PROD, the only source in this article which is primarily about this album is from AllMusic. That alone does not provide for GNG, and I don't see anything here that would evidence an NALBUM pass either. Redirect to Actionslacks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:53, 24 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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Seijas[edit]

Álvaro Seijas (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)

Run of the mill minor league player. Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Only two notable sources are from the Journal Star (Peoria) Yankees10 01:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the reliability of the Journal Star. I am saying those are the only two sources of coverage and they come from the exact same newspaper. That is not "significant coverage".-- Yankees10 02:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First of all, archive links to the Journal Star pieces:[19][20]. These do meet the definition of significant coverage (addressing the topic directly & in detail), but since multiple sources are required, they're not enough on their own. That said, I also found this article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, meaning there is significant coverage from two regional newspapers, so GNG is met. Hatman31 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hatman31's findings above. Article clearly meets GNG, and has enough reliable sources to support its existence. CycloneYoris talk! 01:55, 1 June 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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mengjie[edit]

Mengjie (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’m nominating this page for deletion today based primarily off of WP:GNG, lack of a coherent subject, and intractable WP:SYNTHESIS issues, the latter two of which can be folded into WP:TNT.

This is eligible for deletion under these criteria as this is not a disambiguation page; it is a anthroponymic set index list per MOS:DABNAME, and as such must follow GNG and WP:NLIST.

This fails NLIST on two counts; the first is that there is no substantial English-language coverage of the Mengjie given name. The second is that there is no one subject of Mengjie or of similar loci; this is why I discount any potential Chinese-language source.

The main problem here is that romanizations of Chinese do not have one-to-one correspondence with Chinese characters. Also, a particular romanization X may also appear in a different romanization, but instead representing a different sound; this is all before we take tones into account. We might also note that Chinese is not one language; it is better described as the Sinitic language family (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, etc.), and every character is pronounced differently and thus romanized differently even if the character itself is identical.

Mengs in Mandarin include, for example: 夢, 萌, 孟, 猛, and 蒙.

Mengs not restricted to Mandarin include 孟 (see above intersection) and 萬, romanized in Hanyu Pinyin as wan.

As another analog, take common Chinese surnames; note common overlap in the end state of romanizations between romanization systems (the most common now are Hanyu Pinyin, Wade-Giles, and postal) and different languages of Sinitic. Any original language discussion of a particular given name, even in Chinese, would then be conflated with every other possible combination of romanizations, characters, and languages that would result in Mengjie. It is a many-to-many correspondence.

As such, the content and premise of this page is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS. It combines multiple forms of two-character Chinese given names and all English Mengjie romanizations into one; reliable sources doing this do not exist so far as I can see.

The similarity in Hanyu Pinyin romanization is an effect of how words are pronounced in Mandarin. Categorizing them into one English romanization is akin to fitting a square peg into a round hole; this is before we get into tone differences, which change meanings in and of themselves.

There has been no previous project discussion on pages like this—given names with ambiguous romanizations and variations in English without one-to-one-correspondence—that I could find, and certainly not in WikiProject Anthroponymy or in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles.

I’ll then address the criteria laid out in WP:CSC, mentioned in WP:SIA as a guideline, itself a sub-guideline of WP:SAL, itself a guideline and of course subordinate to GNG. This list plainly fails the “every entry in the list fails the notability criteria” and “short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group” criteria, so what remains is “every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.”

But then what is the list about? As established above, it’s about many things vaguely defined that don’t hold water in Sinitic or in English; they are not the same, and similarity occurs only in contrived English analogs.

The article in its current state shows the lack of focus. Every instance of Mengjie originates from different written characters. Mengjie itself is not and cannot be notable. The premise of this article is flawed; this article ought to be deleted. Iseult Δx parlez moi 01:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I’m not sure that’s a rationale for deletion. I think the relevant consideration is “what will English speakers search for/want to know?” So a good outcome would be to build the article out to explain that while there are a number of people with a name that sounds as though they're the same name, in fact they have different meanings. Mccapra (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first thing to understand is the relative commonality of surnames versus given names between the western world and East Asia. In the western world most given names are sourced from a relatively bounded set while surnames are more variant by orders of magnitude; in East Asia the situation is reversed, such that the vast majority of people share surnames from a small set while given names have almost no limit. Secondly, as the nom states, this is a romanisation of multiple possible combinations of Chinese characters (although they are not all different; at time of writing two of the three instances on the target page are romanisations of the same two graphs).
    So while it might almost make sense for Wikipedia to have an article List of people named Emma, we would never consider it appropriate to have the article People whose surnames are pronounced /bæks/, to which the article under discussion is analogous. Folly Mox (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this page is pretty useless as an encyclopedia article – there is not much to say about given names transliterated "Mengjie", both because they are a variety of given names with nothing to do with each other and because, as User:Folly Mox points out, Chinese given names vary widely and don't generally have history associated with them like English given names do. (There are exceptions; it's possible that Jianguo (given name) – 建国 – could support an article, and indeed it has one on the Chinese Wikipedia.)
So the only reason to keep this page would be to help with disambiguation. For surnames, that can sometimes be useful, because notable people are sometimes identified by their surname alone, making the surname a plausible search term for the article about the person. But Chinese given names are rarely used alone, except in informal situations, so it is hard to imagine that someone would search for "Mengjie" to find one of these people without knowing their surname. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Mengjie (disambiguation). Total agreement that it's not notable but has some limited utility as a dab page for users who don't realize that Chinese names are family first. Matt's talk 16:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike western naming conventions, Chinese (and other East Asian) cultures generally don't name children after ancestors or famous people. People who share a given name like Mengjie were named so in coincedence, instead of choosing a name passed down in History. Chinese given names don't really need pages like this. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:26, 27 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of films considered the best (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 is not for lists of bests and this article is pretty much all WP:SYNTH. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a list of films that have topped "best film" polls. That's not WP:SYNTH, that's WP:LISTCRITERIA. The title does not reflect this particularly well; a proposed rename to a more accurate title a few years ago failed to reach consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't even understand the nomination: "Wikipedia is not for lists of best and this article is pretty much all synth." Wikipedia is for anything that meets the criteria of WP:LISTN, which this list clearly does. Polls and surveys of the best films have enjoyed prolific coverage in a plethora of reliable sources. It is a legitimate topic to cover here on Wikipedia. There is no synth in this article; synth is defined as taking claim A from one source, claim B from another, and combining them to deduce claim C, that is not present in either source. There are no claims of that nature in this list: each and every film on the list is directly sourced, and can be corroborated by that source. We are covering old ground here and LegalSmeagolian hasn't brought forward any new arguments. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other news: Snow will fall. Details at 11! (Subtitle: Keep.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is basing its data off of reviews, which means there are no WP:SYNTH issues here. Frankly it's useless for this article to be continued to be nominated here when there has been a clear consensus many times to keep this article. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This should be a no-brainier, the list clearly meets all relevant criteria. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "WP is not for lists of bests", says who?LM2000 (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Betty Logan, who sums up everything that needs to be said. This is not SYNTH, nor does it go against the purpose of Wikipedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has plenty of lists of bests — and while you're at it, you may consider our lists of worsts as well! — so even if the nomination were reasonable (it is not, as outlined above), far more than this article would have to be taken into consideration. This is not quite the place to start the wide sweeping movement to change whether Wikipedia tracks lists of bests or worsts; you would need an RfC at, say, the WP:Village pump. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per SNOW.★Trekker (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I’d do it myself if I wasn’t banned from closing deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it myself now. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:02, 29 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaldo Lapuz[edit]

Renaldo Lapuz (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) 20:14, 15 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. Sources published after his unsuccessful 15 January 2008 audition on American Idol:
      1. San Diego Jr., Bayani (2010-12-08). "Renaldo Lapuz revisited". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2010-12-12. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

        The article notes: "... Renaldo, according to new manager Jared Marshall, is back to square one—living in a small rented room and working the night shift at a Wal-Mart outlet in Reno, Nevada. ... Renaldo, who will turn 48 on December 18, recently composed and recorded a holiday carol entitled “Christmas Chocolatte.” ... This year, he will spend Christmas like any other holiday since migrating to the United States in 2004"

      2. "Catching Up With 'American Idol's' Most Memorable Castoffs". Yahoo!. 2012-01-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

        The article notes: "Admit it: You've probably had this furry-hatted friendship ambassador's anthem "We're Brothers Forever" lodged in your brain ever since he auditioned with it in Season 7. (Everybody, now: "I am your brother, your best friend forever...") Really, "We're Brothers Forever" probably should've been Season 7's coronation song instead of "Time Of My Life." Renaldo later released two independent albums, 2009's Renaldo Lapuz and 2010's Rey, but those recordings, unsurprisingly, weren't nearly as popular as "We're Brothers Forever," so he was last reported working as a janitor at a Wal-Mart in Reno--where customers still recognize him, even without his hat. Renaldo still has hopes to pursue a musical career."

      3. Norman, Michael (2008-03-13). "'American Idol' reject Renaldo Lapuz to perform at RocBar in Cleveland's Flats". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

        The article notes: "The "American Idol" wannabe was laughed out of the room when he auditioned for Season 7. Something about his off-key voice that the haughty judges couldn't grasp. Well, Lapuz has the last laugh. The Nevada resident has become a smash on YouTube with his song "We're Brothers Forever." The a cappella ditty -- delivered with an off-kilter panache you rarely see anywhere, let alone on "American Idol" -- has inspired fans to add musical accompaniment, turning the warble into something some might call a "power ballad." The one-time reject is even heading into the studio to record an album. But first, Lapuz will bring his shtick to Cleveland."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. "'American Idol': I Am Your Brother!". Orange County Register. 2008-01-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

        The article notes: "In seven short minutes, the show turned Renaldo Lapuz from oddball to star. After his "audition" Wednesday night, Renaldo is literally an overnight sensation. Already, YouTube is filling up with new versions of Renaldo’s stirring anthem "I Am Your Brother Forever," and discussion boards are pouring out the love for America’s new feathered friend, who brings "hope to those who are in despairs.""

      2. Barnes, Brad (2008-06-27). "We've Had Enough". Ledger-Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

        The article notes: "The best they've thrown at us in terms of memorable pop culture icons this year is Renaldo Lapuz --- that "American Idol" guy in the white costume with a Jose Feliciano riff and mad love for Simon. Not to discredit Lapuz. You now can specially order his winged hats or book him for your party via his Web site, and that's no small feat."

      3. Romero, Katrina (2008-01-22). "Who is Renaldo Lapuz?". Balita USA. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

        The article notes: "After appearing on an "American Idol" audition episode Jan. 15, Renaldo Lapuz seems to have taken the Fil-Am community and the Internet by storm. ... The 44-year-old Lapuz, a Reno, Nevada resident, has acquired much attention among online blog communities, many of which have remixed his audition song, while one "official" site is selling T-shirts sale which emblazon his song title."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While this is purely anecdotal, not a formal criterion, I would note that I saw this AfD discussion only because I happened to look up Lapuz today. I found the article to be useful. — Shmuel (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See Cunard's contribution and my early comment, both above. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Kvng and Cunard that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSINGER with sources presented by Cunard. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:21, 30 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 Glossary of law. Reasonable time was also suggested as a merge target but did not win as much support. signed, Rosguill talk 02:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately (law)[edit]

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

a bunch of unsourced articles that rather blatantly violate the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary.

bundled afd:

lettherebedarklight晚安 06:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge to Glossary of law. More relevant to Wiktionary than here; blatant WP:NOTDICTIONARY violation. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: this entry documents a contested legal term of art, it does not provide a definition of the term. Definitions are what Wiktionary is for; this article has a fundamentally different basis. Jack4576 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the relevant content to Reasonable time and Glossary of law without prejudice or keep Immediately (law). This legal concept satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There is a very large amount of coverage in books: [23] [24] [25]. This concept is very often the same thing as reasonable time, and is typically the same thing in English law. The content of this article is about case law on statutory interpretation (and the similar interpretation of other legal instruments such as contracts) and is not a lexicographer's dictionary definition. In any event, an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition. The article is entirely referenced to encyclopedias and law reports from start to finish. Certain content in the section of the article headed "Compounds" might be merged to the glossary on grounds, in particular, that it appears that it may be glossary material, and include multiple glossary entries for separate terms. James500 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    an article on this legal concept is capable of being expanded far beyond a definition
    and it hasn't been done since 2009. just delete the junk. start over, if so inclined. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the reasons provided by James500 Jack4576 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reasonable time by WP:NOTDICT Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Glossary of law per above. NOTDICT applies. If there is a consensus for a different merge / redirect target, I have no objection; in this case I think a merge into the glossary with related terms wikilinked makes the most sense.  // Timothy :: talk  05:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 24 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. If someone wants to work on this in draft space to see if sources eventuate, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 18:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meron Abraham[edit]

Meron Abraham (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 and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: you haven't mentioned this in the nom; did you search for other sources including local sources? Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a cursory Google search (in depth) reviewed multiple pages. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it odd there are five articles that I created put up by same nom very recently. Are you looking through my article creations or Eritrean cyclists? This could be considered Wikihounding, as there looks to be some pretty obvious targeting. I will not start accusations yet, but it is starting to look this way. Therefore, I hope this pattern ends soon. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are essentially bad quality articles that fall under the same topic, Eritrean cyclists. To suggest anything more than that would be ridiculous. Instead of declaring this, why not work on improving the bad quality articles you have created? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National champion, continental champion and winner of a 2.1 level race. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, the merit of our Eritrean velocipedist, meeting NATHLETE standards, finds little succour in the face of SIGCOV's insufficiency. This does, however, impel me to cast my vote 'Keep', invoking the 'Ignore all rules' principle. It's a regrettable tableau of our policies, unintentionally playing the racist hand. I yearn for the dawn where our encyclopedic house embraces broader inclusivity, and not a parochial world view. Jack4576 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a valid keep reason. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No SIGCOV sources have been found (either here or from my own search), so NSPORT and GNG are not met. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source in article is stats, nothing else has been found. Keep votes did not provide sources and resorted to the invalid IAR claim to keep a BLP without sources. WP:BLP clearly 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  21:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCYC bullet point 5. Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). I am confident in SIGCOV as the sources used were enough to back up this article. WP:NBIO may be not satisfied but that is off the plate, as more adequate guidelines exist for sportspeople. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add, WP:GNG is to show presumed notability. It is not a necessary or sufficient condition for notability (but to be fair, in run of the mill cases, it is). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline for sportspeople requires GNG to be met, and to contain citation to SIGCOV in IRS sources, regardless of meeting a sport-specific criterion. Since the subject meets no other SNG criteria, GNG is necessary for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right I looked at the FAQ. I still vote keep for the time being to allow more sources to be uncovered. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's still the WP:SPORTSBASIC requirement that a source providing SIGCOV must be cited in the article; so far we don't have anything approaching SIGCOV here. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Consensus is this should not be a standalone at the moment. History remains under the redirect for a spinout for 10th... or other needs. Star Mississippi 18:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress[edit]

Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress (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)

Twice moved to main after draftifying. May be a notable topic as noted in history but has no sources and should not remain published in its current condition. To avoid further 'move-warring', a discussion is now warranted. Naive search did not reveal additional SIGCOV. Possible merge to Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Eagleash (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:23, 24 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! 06:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deathworx[edit]

Deathworx (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)

Lacks reliable sourcing, and none can be found on Google. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete No sources of any kind found in Gsearch, the band is not found on the internet in any sort of RS. Not meeting music notability guidelines, no charted singles, no Grammy or other awards, not much of anything really for them. Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Some sources now present. Reliability of varying quality. Add half a dozen more independent sources and the article could be much improved. Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I see no new sources added, Pablo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Couldn't find any usable sources, fails WP:NBAND.-KH-1 (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The good news: Spotify lists Deathworx, and its founder Grayson Rupp. The bad news: Deathworx is shown as having 1 monthly listener; Rupp is shown as having 0. This does not favor a finding of notability. – .Raven  .talk 03:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A complete failure of WP:NBAND. There are no valid sources in the article, and searches turn up absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 03:48, 24 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_24&oldid=1157978522"