Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 7

< June 06 June 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Toy and Doll Museum

Chester Toy and Doll Museum (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: ORG, closed now Happyecheveria (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree closure is not grounds for deletion. Book sources almost certainly exist but I'm no longer in Cheshire so can't go to the library to find them. I've notified WP:WikiProject Cheshire in case someone there can help. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking a little more participation here. We just have the nominator's view and comments that the deletion rationale is not justified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews and just directory listings in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voteprochoice

Voteprochoice (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:NORG. The sources in the article do not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT:

  1. Marie Claire is a partner of #VOTEPROCHOICE and is not providing independent coverage;
  2. Elle's coverage was provided by Holly Rhue, who describes her job as being a beauty reporter and thereby casts doubt upon the reliability of the reporting;
  3. Ms. Magazine's piece is written by Heidi Sieck, a founder of the group;
  4. BuzzFeed News provides trivial coverage of the group itself;
  5. Politico provides trivial independent content;
  6. The Story Exchange provides trivial independent content in its brief mention of the group;
  7. The Cut gives the group no more than a namecheck.

Additional searching for independent coverage of the group by reliable sources came up rather short. Even among the articles from reliable independent sources on the website's press page, it's entirely of trivial coverage or mentions in the vein of "candidate was endorsed by pro-choice groups X, Y, and #VoteProChoice" or "Heidi Sieck, the activist who runs #VoteProChoice, says X", but the fact that this describes all of the coverage I could find that isn't in the article bodes poorly for notability. "The only pro-choice group that has endorsed X candidate is #VoteProChoice, a small organization founded in 2016 by activist Heidi Sieck" indicates to me that the organization itself is not all that big. Ordinarily, I'd propose that this be redirected to Heide Sieck, but that page does not exist. I can't find any alternative but to delete the article as not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom. As for why I'm applying the strict WP:NCORP, VoteProChoice is a project of Democrats.com, which is a for-profit LLC based in New York State. A limited liability corporation in New York is a for-profit corporate form; nonprofit organizations (such as the National Rifle Association) are not permitted to be LLCs in New York, which has a specific corporate form for non-profits. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, does not look to meet WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Witchouse 2: Blood Coven

Witchouse 2: Blood Coven (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:NFILM. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plainly fails NFILM. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject likely not notable and does not appear to have coverage in reliable published independent sources. A loose necktie (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Considine

Dave Considine (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 2004 article has no reliable references. It was deleted by prod in 2013 and then shortly re-instated after a request to undo the deletion. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted as a PROD and restored as a contested PROD so Soft Delete is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:GNG; no secondary sources found online. References in article are either dead or are primary/affiliated with the subject. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article only - look at the external links. Sgerbic (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Church of Christ, Scientist (Anita, Iowa)

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

I found no significant coverage for the former church or its current status as a library. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Christianity. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The library's website says it hasn't been a church since 1964 and they added/expanded the building. I don't think it's on the NRHP, so you likely won't find online sources talking about the building. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent RS coverage found to distinguish this building, historic or otherwise. The subject is church building that was repurposed as a public library. Its history in either function is not exceptionally long nor independently noted. The page is in the NRHP project because it was initially created with now-removed unverifiable NRHP statements. • Gene93k (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator failed to explain why MLA fails NPOL (non-admin closure) Venkat TL (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kumar Mehraulia

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

Fails WP:NPOL. AmirŞah 22:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. there appears to be relative consensus that while not all sourcing is GNG compliant, enough is to make the school notable. Note, this does not preclude a merger if consensus emerges that it makes sense to cover the school within the town. Just that there's no consensus at all to delete the information. Star Mississippi 03:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton-Udell High School

AfDs for this article:
Moulton-Udell High 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)

WP:MILL. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Moulton, Iowa. This school has 86 students in grades 7-12, so on average about 15 students per grade. This is just not enough to justify a free standing article. Yes I was able to find this [1] US News and World Report profile, but I do not think this is enough on its own to have a seperate article, and with this size I think summarizing the year created, the current enrollemtn and anything else we feel needs to be noted in the larger article on the place it is located would be a better choice, and allow us to focus our resources on building more articles that are benefitical to all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While Johnpacklambert offers an interesting position favoring the conservation of WP resources, his stance is irrelevant to the question of notability requirements, which make no mention of the size of a school in either WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Notability rests on what has been published about a school, not the size of its enrollment. I've added multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources, meeting GNG requirements. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you add everything you could find or did you judge its relevance? To my opinion parts of your additions are irrelevant. The Banner talk 09:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. I did debate whether to include the two incidents in the "Challenges" section, but having lived and attended school in the small town of Stanhope, Iowa I know how huge those stories must have been to the residents of the towns of Moulton and Udell. I defer to the judgment of other editors whether those few sentences should remain in the interests of WP:NPOV.
      My question for you: how did you not acknowledge any of the WP:RS now included in the article during your WP:BEFORE search? Was it a failure of judgment or failure of an adequate search? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      By and large I agree with the stance of mr. Lambert. But not every detail is relevant. The Banner talk 16:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      For example, the KTVO-source is an interview with the school principal, so not independent. The source about the rural decline does mention the school in the text at all. Just that the journalist writing the article is a former student there. Nothing in-depth about the school. Career days? Every school has them. Nothing notable in that. The Banner talk 16:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Articles are usually built both with sources that demonstre notability, and also with reliable sources that verify facts, but which may give context (like the trend especially in mid-western US rural communities reported in the article about rural declining enrollments) or may verify facts per WP:V. Every source needs to meet WP:RS; however, some sources demonstrate verifiability, but not WP:N. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I quickly found a few more sources and added, appears to meet WP:GNG.---Milowent • hasspoken 21:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the additional sources! I've posted a source analysis table on the article's talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Banner, thanks for adding a column to the talk page table with your responses. Because you indicated you could not access Oskaloosa News, I added the relevant text from that source to the quote parameter of that reference in the article. Since we agree that sources #5, 6, and 11-14 do not contribute to notability, I suspect our disagreement rests on whether the 8 remaining sources meet the
Significant coverage criterion:

* "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

What part of that criterion reflects your judgment that none of the sources are "Useful to establish notability"? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statistics, trivial mentions (like a journalist writing an article being a former student but without the school being mentioned in the text of the article) and one-off incidents do not confer any notability. They only illustrate. The Banner talk 16:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. But not all of the sources provided fit into those categories. The fact that some do does not take away from the usefulness of the others. Jacona (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I indicated with the little red "x" mark in the "Meets Notability criteria" colum that I agree that sources #6, 12, and 13 that User:The Banner refers to do not contribute to GNG. Some sources contribute to contex, and some contribute to verifiability of facts, and not all sources must count toward notability. I disagree about source #1 NCES ("statistics") which does meet the four criteria that constitute notability, and I would point out that the USA Today reference favored by John Pack Lambert appears to be derived from the NCES source. But it doesn't matter, because even without considering NCES source, seven more sources meet all four criteria for GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of applications with iCalendar support

List of applications with iCalendar support (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 list is entirely unreferenced, and seems too trivial for a standalone per WP:LISTCRITERIA. iCalendar support is very common, and the list is also not very useful as it mixes many types of software with different purposes together. the wub "?!" 22:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; also see WP:SALAT. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an almost textbook example of failing multiple points of WP:NOT, including NOTHOWTO (Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers,) WP:NOTDIRECTORY (An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention; and NOTDATABASE (To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tahira Qazi

Tahira Qazi (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 (WP:NOTMEMORIAL) Mooonswimmer 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One source in the article from the Guardian. I find sources from the Daily Mail and Newsweek Pakistan, both of which have been depreciated as reliable sources on wiki. Leaning delete unless someone can comment on the validity of the sources used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid source, but the article is a short opinion peace commemorating someone who is only notable for being killed in a tragic attack, and for her defiant words before her death. Honorable woman, and there is quite a bit of coverage, but a standalone article isn't warranted. A small paragraph can be incorporated into the main article. Mooonswimmer 22:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to discount an opinion piece if it was written independently of her, and in the context of her being death, that is obviously the case. CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm confused by this one as the article has in it multiple news articles about her (including international media), which demonstrate notability for her marriage, her defiance, her death. CT55555 (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:VICTIM:
A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Per WP:BLP1E:
Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
Mooonswimmer 00:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. On WP:VICTIM It seems she was known for who she married, her defiance and her death. They are connected. So that's borderline. But to be specific about the guide, is there an existing article on her death that you think this should be merged into? If not, that quote is not relevant.
  2. The "L" in BLP1E stands for "living" and therefore does not apply here.
So both these seem not relevant. But what is very relevant is the multiple reliable and international sources of news about her. CT55555 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Notability is not inherited, and her husband doesn't seem to be a notable individual anyway. Yes, she is known for her defiance and death... as the victim of a terrorist attack. Would she have a Wikipedia page had she not been killed in the attack? The event (the massacre) is highly significant, but was Qazi's role as significant? It was a heroic act, but it did not change the course of events. Are we to create a Wikipedia article for Miah Cerrillo, an 11-year-old who smeared blood on herself to play dead during the Robb Elementary School shooting? Plenty of reliable sources of news: Insider The Hill CNN People Rolling Stone France Info Le Matin Heraldo Infobae etc..
  2. My bad. See WP:BIO1E.
Mooonswimmer 00:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to assess (and don't see it as important to this discussion) an article about Miah Cerrillo.
She would probably not be notable as per wikipedia norms had she not been killed. But she was killed. And that made her notable.
The relevant parts of WP:BIO1E are about the decision point between an event article or a biographical article. That is a valid debate to have. So if you want to say this should be changed to "Death of Tahira Qazi", I'd probably agree, but that's not the argument you are making, because you are misunderstanding the guidance.
You could maybe argue that this could be merged into an article about the event she died in. Is there one? If not, none of the policy you are quoting is relevant. WP:GNG however remains relevant and is the core issue here. CT55555 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I previously suggested that this article be merged with the event's article ("A small paragraph can be incorporated into the main article."). Mooonswimmer 01:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that above. I consider that a valid point of discussion. I don't know what the policy says on the issue. My personal perspective is it would depend if there was enough content to make an article about them and if merging it would mean losing information.
As it's start class rather than stub, I lean towards keep still. But I certainly consider it a fair question to ask and respect the counter argument.
I still vote keep CT55555 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The point is she was not just a passive victim of a "single event", she played an "active and well-documented role" in it and she was awarded by the government for that. So I think in some cases, notability does come with a "single act", instead of a life long career's achievements. The rule for people notable for only one event should be read in this context in her case.Insight 3 (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly was the active role? And all 145 victims of the massacre were conferred the same awards by the government (Dawn)
    As for well-documented, are we to create a Wikipedia article for Miah Cerrillo, an 11-year-old who smeared blood on herself to play dead during the Robb Elementary School shooting? Plenty of reliable sources of news: Insider The Hill CNN People Rolling Stone France Info Le Matin Heraldo Infobae etc.. Mooonswimmer 17:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please move away from WP:WHATABOUT and just focus on if this article meets the WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
    Okay, perhaps it is presumed the subject is notable. Can we discuss why the subject merits a standalone article? Mooonswimmer 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "active role" cannot be evaluated by the end results. It would be irrational to say she would have been eligible for a standalone wiki article only if she had killed all the terrorists and saved all the children. Also the government gave "medal of bravery" to the rest, but to her the higher award of "Star of Bravery", so she is different here too, adding to her notability.
    As far the Miah Cerrillo to whom you are referring again and again, she saved only her own self (good for her), on the other hand, Qazi stood not for herself but for her students. Don't you see any difference here? Qazi would have been simply shot dead (rather than burned alive) had she not resisted the terrorists. Even the terrorists noticed her "notability"!
    After reading all of your arguments, now I am changing my 'comment' to 'keep'.Insight 3 (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the active role simply pronouncing honorable and defiant words before being killed?
    Last WP:WHATABOUT comment, but do you also believe Afsha Ahmed warrants a standalone article? Her actions and last words are mentioned in most of the sources referenced in the article.
    "Another pupil told how he watched his teacher being burned alive as she stood in the path of the terrorists in a bid to protect her students, giving them a chance to flee. Afsha Ahmed, 24, confronted the gunmen saying: "You can only kill my students over my dead body." She was doused with petrol and set alight. One of her students, 15-year-old Irfan Ullah, wept as he recounted how his teacher gave her life to save her students." IBTimes The Independent Hindustan Times Newsweek Pakistan
    Honorable last words, defiance before death, and posthumously awarded the Sitara-i-Shujaat. Exact same as Tahira Qazi. Is that where the bar is set? Why not merge what little material there is covering both women into the event's article?
    Which award is the "Star of Bravery"? To my understanding, everyone killed was conferred the "Sitara-i-Shujaat."
    Also, I brought up Miah Cerillo because the fact that Qazi has a bit of coverage in reliable sources/meets GNG was brought up multiple times. So does Cerillo (even more so than Qazi), but it would obviously be ridiculous to create a standalone article for her. Mooonswimmer 11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Afshan Ahmed didn't get much attention but she if did, I would say, she deserves a standalone page on the same grounds.
    "Star of Bravery" is the "Sitara-e-Shujaat" and in 2015, only 3 persons received it, Qazi being one of them posthumously.(Express Tribune)
    Comparing Qazi and Miah, the amount of coverage is not the point, but the nature of role is, as I mentioned above. Insight 3 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  – subject clearly qualify WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, as she received Sitara-e-Shujaat and tons of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As per arguments above, I think this is one of the cases, discounted by WP:1E. Thanks. Radioactive (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Ole Miss Rebels women's tennis team

2020 Ole Miss Rebels women's tennis team (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 think it's debatable whether an individual, unremarkable season of a collegiate tennis team is notable as it is, but it's an incredibly tenuous argument for a season that was cancelled midway through because of COVID. fuzzy510 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Ole Miss Rebels men's tennis team

2020 Ole Miss Rebels men's tennis team (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 think it's debatable whether an individual, unremarkable season of a collegiate tennis team is notable as it is, but it's an incredibly tenuous argument for a season that was cancelled midway through because of COVID. fuzzy510 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Meade

William J. Meade (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. Appellate judges are not inherently notable, per WP:USCJN. Otherwise fails WP:GNG as literally no sources that confer WP:SIGCOV exist (I originally created this article). Curbon7 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Massachusetts. Curbon7 (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No SIGCOV out there; just the usual fleeting "Judge Meade ruled X" single sentences in news reports about other people and other cases, and few enough of those. Ravenswing 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed, non-notable judge. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons discussed in Point I of my essay here. I am pinging User:BD2412, who is the major contributor to articles about American judges, for his thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is claiming that judges at this level are inherently NOT notable; just that there is neither consensus nor broad support for the premise that they are. Even if they were -- and neither your personal opinion nor that of BD2412 constitutes such consensus -- articles on the same stand and fall on the GNG. I will flip my vote in a moment should you find significant coverage of the subject, beyond casual mentions in routine coverage of cases on which he happened to be the judge. Failing such coverage, he just doesn't merit an article. Ravenswing 19:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Newyorkbrad and Ravenswing: The appropriate notability guideline to apply in this case is WP:USCJN, which states of state appellate judges: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable". I would either want to see evidence of these factors, or sources indicating notability derived from extrajudicial teaching and publishing activities. BD2412 T 01:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Judges at the appellate level are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, but must be shown to pass WP:GNG on significant reliable source coverage about them and their work to clear the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to his official biography on the Massachusetts government website, he was a seminar lecturer and coordinator of a clinical program at Harvard Law School from 2000 to 2003 and editor-in-chief of the Massachusetts Law Review (a co-curricular organization that publishes a student-reviewed law journal) from 2003 to 2006. COULD he qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) if anyone can confirm he meets this threshold with his judgeship being merely worthy of mention? For example, I found this University of Indiana symposium. This is not to imply the symposium itself is anything, but rather what inspired the idea. Without access to Law-specific databases I cannot vote one way or another.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Egobi

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

Non-notable boxer that fails WP:NBOX. My BEFORE search only came up with two sources. Ignoring the fact that it's strictly local coverage, they're both by the same author, so it's to be treated as one source for notability purposes. One source with significant coverage for a non-notable boxer who retired in 2012 doesn't satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. – 2.O.Boxing 21:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX. Except for some local coverage, I didn't find significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Talk of a world title shot was just the usual dream for fighters. All I saw were passing mentions, fight results, and database entries. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Face-Off

Animal Face-Off (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)

Couldn't find any sources. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article already cites two sources, and the show is mentioned in the book Watching Wildlife by Cynthia Chris. I feel there is sufficient reliable sources, especially since it's a show that aired on a major television channel. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The NPR link in the article is dead, and the other source seems to be only two sentences long. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NEXIST. Merko (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The archived source has a link to "full article", and NPR review can be found here. It is in audio format, and it's 3 minutes and 15 seconds long. WP:NEXIST. I will be replacing NPR reference momentarily Merko (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Superboy

The Adventures of Superboy (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)

Deprodded with "obviously notable" but I couldn't find any sources. Nothing useful on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books. The show was never aired, and doesn't appear to have even been finished. Current sources in article are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a TV show for which only the pilot was made. There is no justification for a full article on this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added a couple of refs, WP:V is certainly met, I do not know if we are at WP:N yet but it seems reachable. Google Books search turned up results in a couple of books [2][3] which I'll have to do some confirmation on but look very promising. Artw (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything I've found on GBooks appears to be a mere directory listing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree. Also "Nothing on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books." is not the same as "mere directory listing" even if that was the case. Artw (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I left out a word. Nothing significant found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have confirmed that there is an entire dedicated chapter in Superman on Film, Television, Radio and Broadway. Artw (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination in bad faith. Artw (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the bad faith? I pointed out that the current sources in the article are not reliable, and that I was unable to find any better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You ruled out a potential avenue for finding sources without apparently exploring it. Possibly accidental but your response is telling not, you just don’t care. Artw (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Nothing useful on Newspapers.com, ProQuest, or Google Books." Which avenue did I leave out? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    YChanged the wording to cover up after yourself does not make it any better. And it's probably still not true. Artw (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because no one in the history of Wikipedia has ever left out a word when typing before, right? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see we are now at “deleting random chunks of the article.” Artw (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of the paragraph was sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. The other half was not sourced at all. Per WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing material that could be verified and contribute to notability during an AfD is pretty underhanded. The material was not in any way contentious or hyperbolic. I have restored it with "citation needed" flags. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a point in keeping unsourced information around. WP:V says that you can remove unsourced info. I don't see how it's "underhanded". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, I'd agree. I've spent a great deal of time removing unsourced material. During AfD, however, unsourced information can guide interested editors to sources. In this case, you removed information about a book and a documentary that cover the subject. Personally, I'm surprised you'd put any effort at all into improving an article you actively trying to delete. What's the point? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW the book itself mentions having the scripts on it's back cover [4], and there's a fair chance some other book source does too, though I haven't located anything yet. There's also an interview on a fannish site here [5]. Feels like with some pushing something usable might be unearthed.
    For the documentary with a clip there's a few DVD reviews that mention it covers Superboy but nothing that says it has a clip, and frankly that seems a bit low value anyway. The documentary itself is on Youtube[6] and may itself be a source on Superboy, though using it as a source for its own contents might be weird. Artw (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to problems with the AfD have added new sources which should be sufficient. Artw (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this, this, and this. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convniced "Warped Factor" is a reliable source, as the writers are credited only by first name and there's no editor credit. The two book sources are very tangential mentions; hell, the first one isn't even a full sentence. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the other evidence of notability and sources, the fact that the show was set in the Superman universe, involving one of the most iconic characters imaginable, also supports notability. Frankly I don't sympathize much with the ongoing drive to decimate our popular-culture coverage, but this is a particularly ill-chosen instance of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first episode was completed and included with the DVD collection of Smallville. Coverage exist at https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legends-revealed-343/ and elsewhere. Dream Focus 16:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Superboy. Warrants a mention in the main article, but the stillborn series does not meet WP:NMEDIA in its own right. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Superboy. The keep arguments from Dream Focus and Newyorkbrad are both lacking in any policy basis. Being included on a DVD collection as a bonus feature is not evidence of notability. Neither is simply existing in the Superman universe. Reminder to both that this was a non-aired pilot, not a complete television show that was broadcast. There are insufficient sources to indicate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Following up on my comment above from before the relist). The reason I think it's relevant that this proposed/aborted series is in the Superman universe it that this fact makes it more likely that someone with an interest in Superman/Superboy would hear about a Superboy series from 1961, during the relatively early years of telephone, and would consult Wikipedia to find out more about it. I think he or she would benefit from seeing the relevant information laid out in the separate, if brief, Wikipedia article we now have. If the page is redirected to the main Superboy page, then either the information in this article will all be merged into that article, which would further lengthen an already substantial article and potentially create weighting issues, or else valuable information would be lost. I do not see it as a priority to delete this type of article in any event, but I find it especially undesirable under these circumstances. Put differently, I see value to our readers from keeping the article and no downside to doing so, which at the end of the day is the ultimate conclusion one is reaching any time one casts a keep !vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Superboy#In other media - The viewable sources actually brought forth during this AFD are incredibly brief, generally consisting of a few sentences all stating more or less the same information that it was an unaired pilot to a series that was never made. I can't view the book that Artw mentioned, but even if there is more substantial coverage there, I would still argue that this would be a case of WP:NOPAGE, where a separate article would not be an appropriate spinout. Its already been mentioned above, but the above keep votes whose arguments are that its inherently notable because its related to Superman, or that its inherently notable due to it being included in a Smallville DVD are both invalid arguments for Keeping. Rorshacma (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rich List (New Zealand game show)

The Rich List (New Zealand game show) (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)

De-prodded with one source, but I couldn't find anything else. Most places gave no results for "Jason Gunn" "Rich List". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Basar

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

Non-notable businessman, while there are an impressive amount of sources cited they are all either database listings, passing mentions in routine coverage of the company he is CEO of, and unreliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as person is notable and has has credible independent sources. Also he is one of most prominent business tycoons in the Middle East (Aaeeshaaadil4 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete is what I'm thinking here. There are many, many sources who mention Syed Basar, but I cannot seem to find any that actually talk about him in any significant detail. It's all quotes from Basar or mentions that Basar is on a given board of directors or two-sentence bios that don't offer anything beyond a list of companies he's associated with. This paucity of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources makes me conclude they don't meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG, because the coverage is trivial (to adopt the language of WP:NBASIC). That said, it is possible that I have missed something, so always happy to re-evaluate if others find, say, two to three high-quality sources with in-depth coverage of Basar himself. /wiae /tlk 23:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pakistanis in the United Arab Emirates Delete  – I guess, will be best option here. While deep diving into Google search results, I found out that this CEO of a notable company (my claim after looking into Google search results) doesn't have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG threshold, but I kinda believe, man like him having that much of a power and influence, will have significant coverage to pass WP:GNG (which we are unable to find right now). It'll be useful to keep this page history by making redirect. AHatd (talk)
@Ahatd: interesting idea. It's a creative target for sure, but it occurs to me that redirecting to an article about an entire national group would be a more surprising target than what a reader might expect. On that basis I think I would still prefer deletion. What do you think? /wiae /tlk 11:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you're right mate, being redirected to an entire national group will be quite surprising to a reader. Company he works with (International Holding Company) is notable, but doesn't have mainspace page. And as this AfD is near to close, I don't think I can create page for this company that fast (Just to get this page redirected there). Also I see an abandoned draftspace copy of this page (Draft:Syed Basar Shueb), with a page history. So no real point in keeping this page and it's history. Thanks AHatd (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dixon (politician)

Michael Dixon (politician) (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)

Thoroughly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sourced entirely by primary sources. A WP:BEFORE internet search on multiple search engines found no significant coverage whatsoever in WP:RS-compliant sources.

This is a contested PROD. The prod tag was removed with the comment: "we have articles on all other Libertairian party chairs, I don't think it benefits readers to exclude this one." My reply to this editor's good faith argument is a) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale against deletion; b) intraparty officeholders, even those elected as national chair or other top positions in a political party, do not have inherent notability per Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians/political figures. Significant coverage in reliable independent sources is needed to establish notability, and it is sorely lacking here Sal2100 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise International

Cruise International (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)

Most coverage seems to be self-published or churnalism. Numerous paid accounts have been involved in creating and editing the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Steal (film)

The Steal (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a suitable and reliable review from Empire. Needs one more suitable and reliable review in order to be eligible. The Radio Times link doesn’t count because it’s a capsule review which is considered insufficient enough to fully establish notability per NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. In reading this discussion, I have given little weight to the assertion that Nokisi is the "football player of the year 2014" since it was based on a one-off twitter poll. With that and WP:AADD in mind, the delete !votes have it because evidence that he passes the WP:GNG has not been shown. Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sepetaio Nokisi

Sepetaio Nokisi (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. All current references in the article are trivial mentions at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A page dedicated to him being named the national footballer of the year is manifestly nontrivial coverage. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Source 3 is a page about him being named Person of the Year, which certainly meets rule 5 of WP:ATHLETE. Although WP:GNG says that "multiple sources are generally expected", given the extreme scarcity of Tuvalu's online presence, I think it is reasonable to make an exception and presume that other offline sources exist. Also, WP:BIO says that a person is likely to be notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", which he has, and I think using this criterion is reasonable here. EternalNomad (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The aforementioned source seems to habe been copied from Fenui News, one of the main news outlets in Tuvalu: [7] I will replace the source on the page, but I think that is sufficient for the award to count in the context of WP:BIO. EternalNomad (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG, which is all that matters. The fact no multiple sources about the aforementioned "awards" can be available is just stating how relevant they can be in terms of notability in this context. --Angelo (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The coverage in source three, one of few major news outlets in a country of ~12,000, is pretty significant. Some context should be considered for such a small nation: in a week of coverage, their news can be as small as five pages, and for the referenced piece, this athlete got the better part of a page. (Note that these news pieces are not readily available, these are from an archive of only seven). It is enough to believe that additional offline sources in one of the other newspapers has coverage. If nothing else, merging to Sport in Tuvalu should be a worst-case WP:ATD-M solution, but there is enough to keep, in my opinion. -2pou (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers after further discussion of the source in question below since there are no notability requirements for a redirect, and with a pre-existing entry on the list, this seems a valid WP:ATD-R alternative. -2pou (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:GNG NealeWellington (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale of EternalNomad above. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some significant coverage, but no overriding consensus. The keep view wins the voting but doesn't really create a strong enough consensus right now with just the single source of significance presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is zero SIGCOV in independent RS here. The (March 9, 2015) Fenui announcement is un-bylined (the rest of the articles in the issue have authors), probably because it is an unattributed copy of this Feb 26 post from the Tuvalu football facebook group. Not that it was SIGCOV anyway, with just 40 words commenting on him -- 2 brief sentences -- the rest being direct quotes. Clearly does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @2pou, @EternalNomad, @NealeWellington, @Ortizesp, @Carrite JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The assertion that it is an unattributed copy is merely speculation (Fenui is a UN-recognized national newspaper). Furthermore, is typical for reputable news outlets to cite a Facebook/Twitter post as their source of information, but this does not affect the independence of the source. Although it is true that the article is un-bylined, contact information is clearly provided at the end of the release so I don't think that should affect the article's RS status. Whether or not it is SIGCOV can be debated (I think it very much is). EternalNomad (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is literally a direct copy of the facebook post (aside from the slight reordering of paragraphs that nonsensically splits a quote), not a citation; even the "Sepataito" typo is retained. It doesn't matter whether the host is a weekly e-newsletter or the New York Times; a word-for-word plagiarism of a press release unequivocally fails our requirements for GNG. I have no idea what you mean by Although it is true that the article is un-bylined, contact information is clearly provided at the end of the release so I don't think that should affect the article's RS status; there is no contact info in the Fenui article, and the contact info on the facebook post is from the TNFA -- so clearly eliminates it from being independent. Whether or not it is SIGCOV can be debated (I think it very much is). If you genuinely think that "With 40% of all votes the winner is Sepetaio Willie and according to the Tuvalu Football Fans he is the Tuvalu Football player of 2014. Nelesone and Sepetaio were both part of the National team that visited the Netherlands in 2013." is SIGCOV then I look forward to you writing a biography on me centered on my middle school spelling bee wins. JoelleJay (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article gives important factual information such as "Being part of Waitakere City FC for three years", which can (and is) all be added with sourcing into the article. That's what I consider SIGCOV. Again, whether or not it meets the threshold is a judgement call. If you can demonstrate that your middle school spelling bee wins garnered 10% of a week's coverage in a national newspaper, including information about your past activities, I'd be happy to write that biography. As for the contact information, the end of the newsletter clearly states that the reporters are Yvette D’Unienville, Semi Malaki Diana Semi, etc. As for the "direct copy", WP:GNG merely says "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and Fenui News is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. The guideline says nothing about where the information "originated" from (which almost by definition must be affiliated with the subject in some way). EternalNomad (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a breathtakingly incorrect interpretation of the P&Gs. 1. The article gives important factual information such as "Being part of Waitakere City FC for three years", which can (and is) all be added with sourcing into the article. This reasoning fails WP:NOT, in particular As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is reiterated in various places on WP:N, along with the requirement that a single source "provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." A single Tweet's worth of info is not "comprehensive". 2. Considering my hometown has over twice the population of Tuvalu and around the same area, I'm confident my coverage far exceeds in length, depth, sustainment, and geographic range the 40 words (out of 11 pages; roughly 0.7% of the e-newsletter) dedicated to "independent" commentary on Sepetaio. 3. The contact info is for the entire newsletter issue, not the particular story on Sepetaio. A publication listing its contributors does not make it a reliable source for everything. 4. As for the "direct copy", WP:GNG merely says "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and Fenui News is a reliable source that is independent of the subject. A press release, no matter where it is reprinted, is not an independent source and cannot be used for notability purposes. And a press release that was plagiarized shouldn't be cited at all on wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Plagiarized might be a bit strong given what a press release is for and also since the post you linked provides a contact, and full permission may have been given (or even solicited by poster in some way). Looks like it was direct copied here as well: [8]. -2pou (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. This certainly gives less for the article to stand on. Aside from GNG, is your argument also that the aforementioned WP:BIO is not met (I think ANYBIO might have been the actual intended target)? I'm not convinced that I would discount that just yet, keeping relativity in mind, though I may be. It might be likened an MLB all-star selection, where the ultimate root of all selection announcements is the league itself.
    Even if not, I don't see a reason against an alternative merge I proposed. If Sport in Tuvalu is too broad, an alternate merge to the List of Tuvalu international footballers with a footnote of the achievement. -2pou (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @2pou, I ignored the ANYBIO appeal because it was absurd. The types of honors that are meant to satisfy ANYBIO are like, winning a Best Actress Oscar... Being voted Tuvalu Football Player of the Year -- a non-notable award -- in an anonymous google docs poll run by the Tuvalu Football Fans twitter account is clearly not an example of receiving a well-known and significant award or honor. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no idea why this much energy is being spent to snuff out an encyclopedia-worthy stub about the "most successful Tuvaluan footballer in its history." So it never grows beyond that. Big deal. Should have closed a Keep and we'd all be out of here doing something else unproductive. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now arguing that it doesn't matter that he doesn't meet GNG, we should just keep by virtue of his being the best footballer in a community of 12,000 people? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a fair argument, when that community of 12,000 people is an independent nation with a national football team that plays other notable national football teams.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carrite: @Ortizesp:, I agree with both of you. I also feel like the only reason this article was relisted (even though there were 7 keep votes, more than double the 3 delete votes) was because the result wasn't delete. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Sepetaio_close. Original n/c close for the record.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you to Star Mississippi for relisting! I had this page open with a source assessment table (from this version of the page) I made but hadn't posted yet, which I think could be a helpful recap for people who don't want to read all the other comments.


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Outcasts blog Yes No SPS -- shouldn't be used in article on BLP at all No Nokisi (whose name is misspelled in multiple ways) has a quote and 2 sentences on him ✘ No
team tour Netherlands results/stats Yes No stats archive compiled through (hundreds of) volunteers, no evidence of oversight No stats tables ✘ No
Fenui article on his "Tuvalu football player of the year" win No direct reprint of a press release on facebook Yes No aside from not being independent overall, the article has just 40 words on Sepetaio that aren't direct quotes ✘ No
NFT player stats page Yes Yes No stats page ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The other argument towards notability was his winning "Tuvalu football player of the year 2014", however this can be discounted as it was actually an anonymous Google docs poll run by the Tuvalu Football twitter account and has only been awarded once. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Stats, facebook posts and blogs are not even close to what a BLP requires. Even the award appears to be spurious. Avilich (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoelleJay and Avilich. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: all seven keep !votes were based on the one Fenui source "meeting GNG"; now that we know it's completely non-independent and not even SIGCOV, a few participants have since changed their rationale to "he is the most successful Tuvuluan football player in its history", but that is a claim from the press release--itself mostly based on his narrowly winning an anonymous Twitter poll-- not an independent analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT per JoelleJay and Avilich.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails GNG, as it has only very low quality non-RS mentions supporting questionable statements — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of sultanates in Lanao

Confederation of sultanates in Lanao (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 is largely a original research. The 16 royal houses of Lanao is not a hoax and continues to exist as non-sovereign monarchies but the more comprehensive information here are unsourced. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Islam. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There is a Muslim insurgency in part of Mindanao: is this related to that? The problem with this article is that it is unsourced, so that we cannot tell if it is verifiable. A lack of references is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability concerns, all I find about this confederation are wiki mirrors. However, there seems to be a 17th Lanao Sultanate (note not plural) according to this paper which are separated into the 4 principalities (Pangampong). I think it's better to make an article about these principalities as supported by verifiable sources than this original research. --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder if part of the problem is with the article name. The "Lanao Sultanate" is something that does appear in papers. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iskandar323. Definitely. To put this in perspective, I'll offer an analogy. Think of the name Four Principalities or the native name Pangampong as the United States of America. Now this article's name can be called "Confederacy of Counties of America". That's why is ridiculous and original research. --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Peterkingiron, the Sultanate of Lanao (not this confederacy) predates even the Muslim insurgency as they are already fighting the Spanish by before the Philippines even existed. The modern rebellion you are talking about started with the 1968 Jabidah massacre.--Lenticel (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I purposely only commented not voted, as I lack the detailed knowledge to make as judgment. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tuvalu A-Division (women). Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamanuku (women)

Tamanuku (women) (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)

Completely unsourced. External links now taken by other operators. With no updates since 2013 the team appears to be defunct. Blue Riband► 13:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nominating the following as well:

Lakena United (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
F.C. Manu Laeva (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nauti F.C. (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
F.C. Tofaga (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptians (TV series)

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

Deprodded with source from the Guardian, but I couldn't find anything else. Tagged for notability since 2017 with no improvement Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Won a British Academy Television Craft Award for photography, and nominated for 3 others sound, editing & visual effects. Sources for GNG: Bad case of battle fatigue. Evening Standard. Nov. 14, 2003, Ancient Egyptians; Pick of the day. Sunday Times. Nov. 9 ,2003 "Ripping off the ruler's afterlife." Western Daily Press. Nov. 20 2003. via NewsBank. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above such as the Sunday Times and Evening Standard and also won a notable award. Passes WP:GNG so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. starship.paint (exalt) 07:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Shawkat Ali Emon. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shawkat Ali Emon discography

Shawkat Ali Emon discography (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)

like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Akram Shuvo discography there is no need for a separate discography page PRAXIDICAE💕 16:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – well referenced and this type of articles exist for hundreds of Indian composers. Many of them are either poorly referenced or is very small in size. Abbasulu (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of them are either poorly referenced or is very small in size. That would seem to suggest that "many of them" should similarly be put up for deletion or merging. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per above. The list is definitively not "well referenced" (it barely cites any source); and a listing of works is already included without difficulty in the artist's article. This seems an unnecessary split and a WP:NOTDATABASE violation at that; which is not helped by the lack of sources or other valid encyclopedic content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shawkat Ali Emon. The sourcing is pathetic, with sources for only 5 of 115 table rows, and there's no evidence that one of those sources, Dhallywood24.com, has any reputation for accuracy or fact checking. All of the reliably sourced content is now in the target article, so nothing remains to be merged. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is not sufficient, especially for a BLP. It doesn't appear to be an issue of finding sources, so I don't think an additional relist would change this. CT55555, if you'd like to work on this in draft space, happy to provide. No need to go through REFUND. Star Mississippi 03:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Zhang (academic)

Ying Zhang (academic) (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)

Fairly accomplished individual but the references quite poor. Currently fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplished individual with a rich list of references. The deletion reason is not supported. 2A02:AA11:757F:1B80:50D:3218:CBFC:A2B0 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @2A02:AA11:757F:1B80:50D:3218:CBFC:A2B0: They aren't really. It is that yourself in the article, i.e. Ying Zhang? scope_creepTalk 13:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi scope_creepTalk: There are more than 40 sources in the article that credit Professor Ying Zhang's academic and research work, including reputable sources such as Bloomberg and China Daily. Also, the academic information found on Google about the person in question is very extensive. Her contributions to the educational and academic world deserve to be disseminated in the encyclopaedic dissemination space par excellence such as Wikipedia. User:Juanma281984 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not sound very profound and professional. Savannahigh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accomplished individual with significant coverage and noteability. References are plentiful and notable. Savannahigh (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific references should be used to show notability rather than merely asserting they exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lets look at the references:
  1. Ref 1: Meet our experts A small profile. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
  2. Ref 2: Verus Bonifatius A front page of a web site Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
  3. Ref 3: HBRC Mentor Plan 2020 Own site.Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
  4. Ref 4: Meet our IAAB Members Takes you to a LinkedIn entry. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
  5. Ref 5: Zhang Ying: founder and head of the Erasmus China Business Center Confirms she is a professor at RSM Erasmus University. Another profile. Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
  6. Ref 6: Entrepreneurship development in China : a multilevel approach A paper Zhang wrote. cited by 5 articles. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
  7. Ref 7: 【Zhang Ying】A university professor's trip to Wudang A quite a long news story and interview. Independent:No, Significant:Yes, In-Depth:Yes
  8. Ref 8: Meet our employees Not on the list. Independent:No, Significant:No, In-Depth:No
  9. Ref 9: Singularity Academy imparts individualised education with humanity at the core Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No. Passing mention
  10. Ref 10: Team company directory. Independent:Yes, Significant:No, In-Depth:No

There is not one secondary source amongst the first 10 references. Reference 7 is the closest to independent, secondary source that is in-depth but it is interview. The author of the article has tried to make the lack of sources by add reams of other dubious references. The Google Scholar page on Zhang at [9] has only one paper above 100 citations, making her fail WP:NPROF. There is no secondary coverage. I think is possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creepTalk 18:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Here is why:
At first I thought she was a keep because she's the president of an academic institution, note WP:NACADEMIC but all I could find about it online was this https://www.scmp.com/country-reports/country-reports/topics/switzerland-business-report-2022/article/3171717/singularity which seems kinda promo and not enough.
But she has a few awards including one from The Case Centre and their page talks about the awards and has sufficient citations in it to give me the impression that the awards themselves are notable. So I think therefore she gets a pass due to WP:ANYBIO. Assuming people agree, that would suggest she is notable.
I'm less sure of this one than most of my !votes so this is certainly a "change my mind" scenario. CT55555 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spent an hour examing the the first block of sources and finding nothing of worth support academic notability, yet you find two words in a reference that is a passing mention and some industry awards that are generally non-notable think it is worth keeping. What a laugh. If you bludgeon anybody on this Afd with your comments, I'm taking you straight up to ANI. scope_creepTalk 04:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop threatening other editors over edits you imagine they might make.Jacona (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as seems like WP:TOOSOON for me. President of Singularity Academy isn't quite enough to push the article over the line, and a lack of significant independant sources to pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Question for User:scope_creep. You said she has only one paper above 100 citations, but when I clicked the link above to google scholar, there was one with 146, another with 167, another with 219, one with 2,826, one with 163, 361, 336, 329, 281, 178....and I got tired of looking. Don't get me wrong, 100 citations may be fantastic, maybe not, depending on the situation. I just encourage everyone to follow the links and read the numbers themselves. Jacona (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Self-check - I see that there may well be a flaw in the scholar search above; it well may be a different scholar...further search needed. Jacona (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many academics that share this name. Striking question/comment above as they are not useful. Take extra care when looking at sources to ensure you're looking at the right Ying Zhang! Jacona (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    agree. @Jacona
    also what really defines being notable in the mind of @Scope creeps? it seems we (editors all above) are talking on the different pages. The comments above by scope_creep questioning on the references are so subjective and artificial. don't make me wrong. i just dont understand what is the measures of his/her judgement on indepent, significant, and indepth.
    I spent some time to review this person and the comments above by @Scope creep.  i think the question is not about this person's being notability (based on her global awards/including top 40 prof. under 40, thinker30 next generation, UN awards, the case center awards, as well as HBR managment mentor,etc, she is notable), but should be about how we shall add more specific references to show the notability and make this page more completed.
    Also, what I find “interesting” is there are lots of pages on wikipedia (personal biography, incl. academic) much less notable than this person , but without some threatening and unprofessional comments (on to other editors). What wikipedia aims to do is to disseminate great ideas/theories and people without bias. The whole discussion above makes me wonder the reason behind the intention of this deletion initiative. Looks like personal vendetta than a standardised approach (some of the threatening discu notes made above by @Scope creep) Savannahigh (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to be clear I have no opinion on this article. Collectively no doubt, all the people named Ying Zhang would be notable were they one person, but this is about just one of them, and to make a determination about her notability one way or the other would take me more time than I'm willing to commit. Jacona (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Savannahigh you should be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. AFD is very much about the notability, and not how complete the article is as per WP:INTROTODELETE. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC) P.S. In terms of criteria for references, you may want to take a look at WP:GNG and WP:RELIABLE. Whether something is independant or not is rarely subjective. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Is Enough?

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

All but one of the sources is a press release from Game Show Network itself. This only aired for two months in 2008 and was never heard from again. Some of the GSN originals have managed quite robust articles from minimal sourcing (Think Like a Cat, anyone?) but this one doesn't even seem to have gotten that. Suggest deletion or redirection to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Richmond, Ray (2008-01-06). "How Much Is Enough? If hosting a game show is good enough for Drew Carey and Howie Mandel, why not Corbin Bernsen?". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The article notes: "All of that said, Bernsen looks a bit awkward in this role. He’s overly indulgent and boisterous with the players and looks to be trying entirely too hard. But he’s also got 40 episodes here to find his sea legs, and the expectation is he will. Less certain is how well the show itself will go over. Here’s the gambit: The quartet of competitors study one another and calculate the best time to secretly “buzz in” as various money values between $1,000 and $5,000 are flashed. The “greediest” player in each round is eliminated. The other three get to keep padding their winnings until a final round face-off between two survivors. That’s pretty much the whole thing. Bernsen works to make the thing more exciting than it is by ratcheting up his decibel level. He’d no doubt have more fun were Harry Hamlin still available for him to harass."

    2. Nordyke, Kimberly (2007-11-26). "GSN game show is "Enough" for Bernsen". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The article notes: "GSN is moving forward with a new Corbin Bernsen-hosted game show for primetime titled “How Much Is Enough?” The network has ordered 40 half-hour episodes of the series, which marks Bernsen’s debut as a game show host. The show, from BBC Worldwide America, features four contestants competing against a “Money Clock” to win the most cash without being the greediest. It premieres January 8 and will air at 9 p.m. ET Tuesday through Saturday. The game begins with five Money Clocks ranging in value from $1,000 to $5,000. The players secretly buzz in each round as the amount of money ..."

    3. Orange, B. Alan (2007-11-28). "GSN Asks How Much Is Enough?". MovieWeb. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

      The article notes: "The Game Show Network has picked up the new series How Much is Enough?. According to The Hollywood Report, Corbin Bernsen will act as the host of this exciting new competition from BBC America."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Weintraub, Joanne (2008-01-06). "Television - Cashmere has a good feel". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "You’ve got to hand it to Corbin Bernsen. The man has gone from "L.A. Law" stud muffin to father figure in "Psych" and elsewhere to game show host without losing any of his affable air. In his latest gig, "How Much Is Enough?" (8 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday, GSN), he genially guides quartets of players through an outwardly uncomplicated but psychologically tricky game that rewards risk but penalizes greed. His "L.A. Law" go-getter, Arnie Becker, would shudder, but Bernsen pulls it off without breaking a sweat or looking as if he’d rather be somewhere else."

      2. Block, Dana (2008-01-06). "Corbin Bernsen asks 'How Much is Enough?'". Tulsa World. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Now he’s trying his hand as ... game-show host? Bernsen will oversee the new Game Show Network program “How Much Is Enough?” produced by BBC Worldwide America (“Dancing With the Stars”). The premise is simple: Contestants will try to guess just how greedy their fellow competitors are while they themselves try to be a little less greedy in order to win all the cash.“How Much Is Enough?” premieres Tuesday, and will air Tuesdays through Saturdays at 8 p.m. on the Game Show Network."

      3. Terrace, Vincent (2014). Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010 (2 ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 481. ISBN 978-0-7864-8641-0. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: 4234 How Much Is Enough? (Series; Game; GSN; 2008). Four contestants compete. A money clock is set at zero and progresses to $1,000 (in round one). Players have to secretly lock in a money amount (trying not to be the greediest). The player who locks in the most money loses the round (as does the person who is the most cautious and chooses very low money amounts). Round three ($3,000) and Round five ($5,000) play in the same manner. Round two ($2,000) and Round four ($4,000) have the clock set at the round rate but begin counting down from the amount. The player who is not greedy or too cautious and who banks the most money wins. Host: Corbin Bernsen."

      4. Donnelly, G.J. (2008-01-08). "Corbin Bernsen Gets in the Game". TV Guide. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Now he adds game-show host to his résumé with How Much Is Enough? (tonight at 9 pm/ET, GSN). Four contestants compete to accumulate as much cash as they can without being the greediest, as a money clock escalates and they must choose a given amount. The one who chooses the highest amount gets nothing. "This specific game really goes to a sociological, philosophical question of today — how much is enough?" Bernsen explains.  He sees his latest project as a logical extension of his career."

      5. Weprin, Alex (2007-11-27). "GSN Picks Up How Much Is Enough". Broadcasting & Cable. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "GSN picked up How Much Is Enough, a game show that features four contestants competing against a “‘money clock’ to win the most cash, without being the greediest.” The network picked up 40 episodes of the half-hour game show, which will be hosted by actor Corbin Bernsen, making his game-show-hosting debut."

      6. Ryan, Andrew (2007-11-30). "TV Ticker". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.

        The article notes: "Former L.A. Law fixture Corbin Bernsen is making the switch to game-show host. The 53-year-old actor will helm the new prime-time gamer How Much Is Enough?, which makes it debut on Jan. 8 on the American cable channel GSN. The network has ordered 40 episodes of the series, in which contestants match wits with a "Money Clock" in order to win cash prizes. In recent years, Bernsen guest-starred on the series Boston Legal and played a recurring character on the cable series Psych."

      7. Shapiro, Mitchell E. (2012). Cable Television Prime Time Programming, 1990–2010. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-7864-7087-7. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: How Much Is Enough (Quiz — Original Series). This original game show had contestants compete to avoid being the greediest player."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters is a press release and therefore a primary source. MovieWeb confirms literally nothing but the host. Hardly WP:SIGCOV if you ask me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bylined article written by journalist Kimberly Nordyke in Nordyke 2007 is not a press release. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it pass WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So a press release and a source that confirms nothing but the host are enough to you? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richmond 2008 says, "Bernsen looks a bit awkward in this role. He’s overly indulgent and boisterous with the players and looks to be trying entirely too hard. But he’s also got 40 episodes here to find his sea legs, and the expectation is he will. Less certain is how well the show itself will go over." This is not "a press release" or "a source that confirms nothing but the host". Cunard (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While there are some short articles, as listed above, they are all in the nature of: oh, look, this show exists. They don't say much about it, and read like promos. For a show that is broadcast, that there are mentions or short articles is the minimal that can exist. It's like if a pop group goes on tour and there are articles saying: X is on tour. Lamona (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if an additional week forms consensus around the sourcing identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's covered enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, and given that it's a television show that aired on a large scale, it likely exists in the public consciousness to some extent, and therefore this article will serve a valuable purpose for anybody looking to confirm a fuzzy memory. I see absolutely nothing to be gained by deleting this article. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 06:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network or some other appropriate target. This is the sort of frustrating case where reasonable minds can differ over how much sourcing is enough, but I don't think what we have quite clears the GNG threshold. Of the sources Cunard discusses above, the first one is an article from The Hollywood Reporter, the second one is a reprint of another The Hollywood Reporter article, and the third contains the line "According to The Hollywood Reporter" and simply summarizes the second article. The GNG notes that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", and I think that's what we're looking at here: we need more than The Hollywood Reporter to show notability. The remaining sources aren't quite significant enough to fill that gap, in my view, although, again, I appreciate that others may disagree. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: although the MovieWeb article is based on The Hollywood Reporter article, it is a different presentation about the facts in the author's choice of what to discuss so I consider it to be a sufficient source to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The guideline says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." But this article is from a different author and different organization which shows that How Much Is Enough? has received significant attention in more than one reliable source. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some thoughtful discussion, so let's see if one more relist can lead to consensus from the current no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard. starship.paint (exalt) 07:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard; note that Reuters is a news agency: I doubt that they are passing off PRs as journalism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps we should be moving this to How much is enough? (game show), given that the game show is defunct and there is a fairly highly cited book of the same name that we have an article on. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Hansome

Rhonda Hansome (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)

Actress that fails WP:NBIO, WP:SIGCOV and some of the mentioned 3 sources of her article are questionable. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've worked on the article a bit and added more source. For sigcov, I'd say Jewish Exponent and South Side Projections are the best Mujinga (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:BASIC - I also expanded the article, including with sources from the WP Library, e.g. a Chicago Tribune profile, multiple reviews for a play she directed, a review in the New York Times for another play she directed, a review of a stand up comedy show that includes highlights from her stand up career, two sources verifying her role as a puppeteer on Saturday Night Live, and a profile in Ms. I can't access but have added to a Further reading section. There are additional sources on ProQuest that can be reviewed and potentially incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MX Machine

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

While I agree with my colleague (courtesy @Kvng:) that a 1985 subject requires extra effort, the 2007 return should have generated some coverage and I can't identify anything that meets NMUSIC nor a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 16:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Star Mississippi 16:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zero results in Worldradiohistory.com which archives music magazines from this era. No results on Newspapers.com. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TenPoundHammer ~Kvng (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing on Newspapers, Wayback, Google, Proquest, or EBSCO. Insufficient sourcing to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources means this ought to be deleted for not meeting GNG and no alternative criteria for keep per NMUSIC. MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Netherlands Antilles

List of people on the postage stamps of the Netherlands Antilles (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 people on the postage stamps of the Netherlands Indies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As with all of these other infernal lists, no one has proven why these are a notable topic per WP:SALAT. The sources are stamp catalogues which verify that these people were on stamps, but there is no evidence that the topic of them being on lists is notable. There is a pretty solid consensus that these are not noteworthy lists. Most of the names are red linked, indicating that they may not be notable beyond having been on a stamp.

Furthermore, the "Netherlands Indies" list has only five people on it. Is that even a "list"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Netherlands. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT CARE At this point in time further "discussion" is irrelevant. Purging of the entire category has been proceeding post-haste and will probably be complete within 2 weeks. The saddest part is that the efforts of hundreds of people expending thousands of hours of personal time is being annihilated over someone's view of "notabilty". There was NO discussion on how to transform the lists into useful articles. Sad to see the data go but fortunately I made personal copies of the lists useful to me! Bill Blampied (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to User:Bill_Blampied If you think there is value in these articles, I would encourage you to vote accordingly. You can influence the outcome, if you make a policy-based argument, for example if there are books that include significant content on people on the postages stamps of Netherlands Antilles, please tell us about them to help inform the decision. The outcome of this will be decided by the strengths of arguments made, so if you have a reason to keep, now is the time to share it. CT55555 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The scope of these articles do not meet Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. This type of list belongs on Wikia, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit that I see no reason for a general discussion. Each article needs sourcing on it to show that in its sphere it passes notability guidelines. We need to source each individual list to a significant enough level to justify it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like the other postage stamp related lists that have come up on AFD, there are no actual sources that discuss the topic as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha mom

Alpha mom (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)

Seems to be a WP:DICDEF/WP:NEO hybrid and nothing more. prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear WP:DICDEF per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strange hybrid of neologism stub...which IRL has been launched as a "brand, new media and research company" (by one of the individuals mentioned in the article) after Alpha Mom TV didn't quite "make it". Meet AlphaMom(R)(TM). (As far as the neologism goes...sources on Newspapers.com say that the opposite is "slacker mom".) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, dicdef with insuffcient substance to support an encyclopedia article. BD2412 T 01:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto (1988 film)

Manifesto (1988 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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the 2 reviews that I just added to the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DonaldD23's finds - I was finding it hard to get beyond Kate Blanchett. It might have been a slightly shit film, but it was a film. As a footnote, interesting that the Zola novella is redlinked and not mentioned on the Zola article... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw this nomination per Donaldd23’s improvements to the article. The Film Creator (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i was going to vote keep but i saw that the nominator has withdrawn, all the best The Film Creator. Excalatory Vocian EV 🦋💞☑️ 07:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Surveying. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topographical surveys

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

Delete or redirect to Surveying. Most of the content in this article is written as a step-by-step guide, which fails WP:NOTHOWTO, or duplicates what is already present in Surveying (the lead and several sections describe almost exactly the same topic). ComplexRational (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. G5, checkusered sockpuppet. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee (noodles)

Yippee (noodles) (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 sure how this is notable as a standalone article on a product - everything appears to be press releases and run of the mill ad campaign type non-coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about reliable sources like The Hindu and Economic times? How can you say it's only for advertising purpose. Nothing is shown as an ad.

Why not stand alone? Sufficient number of sources are provided. Rio Nor (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. with an acknowledgment that this article needs additional work. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dottley

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

Non-notable Creating deletion discussion for Jason Dottley The article seems merely a PR piece. e.g. "one of the 275 most influential people in LGBTI culture globally." But the citation leads to someone's blog. Ditto another claim whose citation leads to an article penned by a person who appears to be a PR agent. Recommend Delete MisterWizzy (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much as I hate to, because the article is indeed wildly promotional and horribly sourced and does need clean-up to meet anything like reasonable standards, his five Billboard chart places get him past WP:MUSICBIO. It was nice to see that the world was introduced to Jason Dottley... *waves back* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the citations for these Billboard chartings? I searched for them and cannot locate ANYTHING on them, let alone anything that would support the Top 20 claim. Most of the songs listed in this article have no citation from the pages of Billboard indicating chart positions, and many of the songs mentioned have a citation that points back to a YouTube video.
    Can Alexander McNabb's comment be considered an objective one if he is "waving" to the article's subject? The comment for this Keep vote doesn't suggest neutrality to me. This article still needs a deeper review. The lack of citations for many of these claims was what generated the notability tag. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:E954:7473:6B1D:2FF4 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says 5 dance club songs in the Top 40 (not Top 20), supported by this. Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep additionally, the link referenced by Schazjmd here indeed mentions the charts, as he's had 5 top 40 on the Dance Club Charts, then if you press the toggle on the "Dance Club Chart" button, you see where he has 2 additional weeks on the Dance/Electronic Chart. As for the "waves back" comment, I assume that was sarcasm in reference to the article's wording as he quoted "It was nice to see that the world was introduced to Jason Dottley." It was not used in bias as to suggest he was actually waving to Jason. In addition to qualifying via WP:MUSICBIO criteria I would also like to add that there are WP:MANYLINKS ie from Sordid Lives, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: D–E, Sordid Lives: The Series, List of comedy television series with LGBT characters, Benny Medina, Dottley and 36 others. A rewrite is advisable to adjust tone, but nothing mentioned isn't sited and the sources, with a few older exceptions, are very significant. 2806:102E:18:B693:1886:FAB0:8493:507F (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Billboard not only shows each of the 5 singles and their chart peak, but how many weeks they were charting. Jason has had 1 Top 20, 2 additional Top 25 and 2 additional Top 40. View here https://ibb.co/CbR1zKT 2806:102E:18:B693:887D:F761:33F3:A30C (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll be damned, a notable puff piece. Keep as per above, but please rewrite it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I admit to extreme conflict of interest in that I did, indeed, figuratively wave at the subject of the article. I condemn myself. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the general notability guideline, in addition to MUSICBIO and probably WP:NACTOR (Sordid Lives theater productions, Sordid Lives: The Series). I added a feature piece in The Clarion-Ledger to the article (could use more mining). In combination with significant coverage in The Advocate, The Standard, and Deadline, there's clear evidence of a GNG/NBASIC pass. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:53, 12 June 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running Home

Running Home (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kirnon

Lucas Kirnon (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 evidence of actual notability at the moment. Montserrat is an extremely small nation, and playing for their national team is the equivalent of playing for a team of the best 11 players from some village basically. There is no good sourcing available for Kirnon, just passing mentions (or the usual databases and primary sources of course). May obviously become notable later in his career. Fram (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to draft. There's a very good chance he plays first-team for Salford in the next 12 months. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Montserrat is an extremely small nation, and playing for their national team is the equivalent of playing for a team of the best 11 players from some village basically." is pretty condescending, actually - very pro-Western media approach. He's made his international debut in one of CONCACAF's main competitions (FIFA member) Zanoni (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people on postage stamps

Lists of people on postage stamps (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 list does not meet the guidelines for lists, in that we do not have reliable sources that cover the topic as a dsintinct group. It has existed since May 10, 2002 so for over 20 years, yet it has no sources at all. We have deleted a lot of the previous lists linked, so having a list of the lists remaining is not very useful. There is a category, so I see no reason to have a list even if some of the lists remain. This list is unsourced, and the dates are just when the places issued stamps, if we want to list that, we can with a general lists of when places issued stamps, we do not have to link it to this topic. Also, if we dicided a general overview article on trends in who is portrayed on postage stamps, considering the subject on a global scale, actually is warranted, than we can create such an article, but this list is not really a useful vehicle to start such an article, especially since it lacks any sources at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People appearing on postage stamps seems like a notable topic, that is covered in very many sources in a significant way. Here are some of the easier to find examples:
  1. https://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140802801/living-people-to-appear-on-stamps-for-first-time
  2. Beleck, M. (2017). Noted Jewish People of the World on Stamps: A Collection of Stamps Issued by Over 95 Countries in the World. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  3. Yardley, C. B. (2014). The Representation of Science and Scientists on Postage Stamps: A science communication study. Australia: ANU Press.
  4. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=950014
  5. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/377286
To say there is a lot of academic and literature sources suggesting that people featuring on postage stamps is a topic of interest to many would be an under statement. CT55555 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I now see that this is a sort of lists of lists, which seems useful. The idea that each of the lists is not notable seems speculative. CT55555 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources above might support an article like Trends in people appearing on postage stamps, but that is not what this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are sources about people on postage stamps. They show that the topic of people on postage stamps is notable. If this was a list about fires in France, and I had a book about 1990s fires in France and another book about 1980s fires in France, that would be legitimate proof that the topic was notable, even though they did not cover every fire. You've proposed to delete a topic that is so massively wide, that no one book is likely to cover it all. If someone proposed to delete the USA article, nobody would find a book that covered everything about USA, they should show books that covered different parts of it. This is the same dilemma you have created by proposing to delete such a huge topic. CT55555 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first source "Living people to appear on postage stamps for the first time" is Myopically about the US. The first person ever on a postage stamp ever was Queen Victoria, who was then alive. There are places that only ever put living rulers on postage stamps. That source is A-not in any way giving a complete list, and B-to the extent it can support any article, it supports an article on poeple on United States postage stamps. It cannot be used to support a broad worldwide article, because it is myopically about the US and flies in the actual history of postage stamps, which is that for about half of their use if not more, most countries had as the only person they would put on their stamps either the current monarch or that monarchs consort. I might be slightly exagerating the scope, but clearly there were many living people on postage stamps before 2011.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NPR is a good source for judging notability, irrespective of the validity of your critique of their analysis. And it's not unreasonable to assume that a "national" news outlet might not be taking a global perspective on its output. CT55555 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an article that should be global in scope. To justify a global article we need global coverage. Plus the article is just about a change in policy in who can be placed on US stamps. That people care about what such policies are does not demonstrate we need an article listing every single such person. Even if we need articles on some countries full list of such persons, those articles can and are grouped by a category. Having some articles does not mean we need to have an article linking those articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't agree that we need global coverage. I think we just need to demonstrate the notability of the exact thing "people on postage stamps". I think I've done that. That said there is a magnificently huge volume of books on postage stamps and clearly many of them include significant content on people who appear on them. WP:BEFORE puts the onus on your to search for that before you nominate, so please take a look at the results that come from your searches and I think you'll see that this is not just notable, but exceptionally notable. CT55555 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • except this is not a general article on tends in who is put on postage stamps, it is a list of list articles. A general article on broad tends in who is put on postage stamps may be supported by the sources you list, but that is not what this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe another way to look at it: is the content notable?, i.e. are the lists that this list contains notable. As they exist on wikipedia, that surely suggests they are notable. Or am I missing something? CT55555 (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable sources. Here are just two instances of such coverage in scholarly publications.[1][2] Turgidson (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting argument. I don't think they would support lists, but they could be used for articles such as Postage stamps and postal history of Mexico and Scientists on postage stamps. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Undignified campaigning against a whole topic, based on quasi-arguments. --Orland (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is likely that all of the remaining lists will be deleted, but there are other lists such as Women on US stamps. When all of the lists are deleted, this list of lists will be eligible for speedy deletion per A3, and it does not require an AfD right now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jones, Robert A. (2001). "Heroes of the Nation? The Celebration of Scientists on the Postage Stamps of Great Britain, France and West Germany". Journal of Contemporary History. 36 (3): 403–422.
  2. ^ Henio Pablo Luis Hoyo Prohuber (2013). Postage Stamps as Carriers of National Imaginaries (PDF) (Thesis). Florence: European University Institute.
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 14:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Leadership Council

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

subject does not meet the NCORP criteria. Sourced to sponsored articles and press releases Khgk (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Taek-hyeong

Kim Taek-hyeong (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)

Reviewed under new page patrol No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Tagged by somebody else since April. The only reference is stats-only North8000 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 220 games in a league that previously gave a notability presumption for one-gamers, I would be shocked if there were not SIGCOV in Korean. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Beanie said. I don't read Korean, but it's really hard to believe that a search of Korean sources would not turn up abundant SIGCOV for someone who has appeared in 229 games as a pitcher' over seven years (including 59 games in 2021 with a fantastic 2.39 ERA) in Korea's top-level league. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He robbed a man of a perfect game [10] and got his team to the post-season [11]. How hard did you guys look? I'm frankly amazed he hasn't been drafted by the MLB. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can only imagine how many Korean-language citations there are that I'm unable to find. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Over 200 games in the major leagues. Even in English, plenty of sources come up. When he lives in a country where English is not the primary language, there's going to be many times the coverage in Korean. Jacona (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Min-hyuck

Kim Min-hyuck (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)

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only reference is stats-only. Tagged by someone else since April. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it absurd to go from one game = notable to FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE = non-notable (as a result of that ridiculous VP discussion). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Beanie said. I don't read Korean, but it's really hard to believe that a search of Korean sources would not turn up abundant SIGCOV for someone who has appeared in 469 games over eight years in Korea's top-level league. Cbl62 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough sources, Yonhap and others, when you search under the hangul spelling of his name. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. A major league baseball with nearly 500 games under their belt meets every applicable notability guideline, including GNG. Even though he's not American, here is a video of him hitting a homerun on mlb.com. Nice. The subject doesn't have to be from an English speaking country to be notable. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Semi-vegetarianism. It looks like semi-vegetarianism is a better home than flexitarianism. Feel free to make the merge in the other direction if you disagree. Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demitarianism

Demitarianism (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)

It took a somewhat deeper analysis than usual, however I'm convinced that the topic does not cross the threshold of notability. The term's use is limited to a "declaration" produced at some 2009 workshop in France and a report produced in 2013 by one of its participants (and author of the term). Barring a single article in the Guardian, neither the report nor the idea has been picked up by the mainstream science or media.

Monthly Google Trends reports shows single-digit searches for Demitarian, typically 0–7 searches per month worldwide[12].

The ar-wiki version is a word-for-word translation of the first two paragraphs of the en-wiki article. The es-wiki article is practically unsourced (none of the five references mentions demitarianism).

All in all, the article appears created as some sort of promotion/advocacy while the topic appears to fall short of WP:GNG. — kashmīrī TALK 20:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fiona Harvey (18 February 2013). "Halve meat consumption, scientists urge rich world". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 May 2022.
  2. ^ Billen, Gilles; Lassaletta, Luis; Garnier, Josette; Le Noë, Julia; Aguilera, Eduardo; Sanz-Cobeña, Alberto (2018). "Chapter 25 - Opening to Distant Markets or Local Reconnection of Agro-Food Systems? Environmental Consequences at Regional and Global Scales". Agroecosystem Diversity. Elsevier Science: 391–413. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-811050-8.00025-X. ISBN 9780128110515.
 Comment: Sorry but I'm not seeing any "significant coverage". The Guardian piece is already linked in the article as is pretty much the only mention in the popular media that I was able to find in English. The second source, i.e., the chapter of a niche book, indeed discusses the idea of the demitarian diet, however it's not an independent source, because the chapter's lead author Gilles Billen sits on the management committee of NinE[13], the organisation behind the Barsac Declaration, and also is a signatory of the Declaration. So, it still looks like a far cry from WP:GNG. — kashmīrī TALK 22:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I found other examples of significant coverage in academic literature, but as you point out, at least one of the authors in each case (Erisman, Sutton, & Billen) are involved with NinE, and so not independent. The Guardian article appears to be the only independent reliable coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  15:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joann Condon

Joann Condon (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 significant coverage and only one major role. SL93 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of pieces about her, it's not exactly top quality, but want to hear from the nominator what you thought of these?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/tv/little-britain-cast-now-bbc-23062368 (note this lists other roles, suggesting errors in the nomination justification)
https://www.shropshirelive.com/entertainment/2021/06/18/ludlow-fringe-festival-to-welcome-joann-condon/
Currently learning borderline keep CT55555 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555 I made no error because I said major roles. Little Britain is her only major role while the other ones were only for a few episodes. I'm not sure if the first source helps notability due to mentioning several cast members. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. It was her only major role. CT55555 (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline Keep as mentioned above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep generally one could state that her person is a notable character in television. U Know I Know It (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NACTRESS. I added sources and citations to the article.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4 Thank you. I would withdraw this, but I see that the AfD was supposed to be closed yesterday. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not eligible for a withdrawal, because another editor voted delete besides yourself. But the closer will see by your comment that your opinion has changed. At this point I think there is a clear keep consensus. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I wish that rule would be changed somewhat since the comment is now invalid. SL93 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep based on the overwhelming consensus Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Kanpur violence

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

This page is a uselss content fork of 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy. The subject very much an integral part of the latter. The page has been created by extracting a section out of it. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pointless content fork of material that is most relevant within its original context, and too diminutive a content body to merit a split. I was possibly hasty, per Capt J Sparrow - perhaps it's a wait and see... Iskandar323 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The remarks controversy article itself may be a failing of NEVENT. A comment sparks criticism in the world of politics is not a need for a new article, barring actual incidents or the like, and feels like itself could be part of a larger target by avoiding the excessive coverage of the per-country reactions. --Masem (t) 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: it wasn't just any comment, it was derogatory remarks about Muhammad and those generate enough controversy to merit their own articles. Consider: 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London (non-violent protest against cartoons of Muhammad), Super Best Friends (a TV episode about Muhammad that doesn't seem to have elicited any violence), 2006 Idomeneo controversy (an opera that was cancelled because it depicted Muhammad). Also, the Regensburg lecture, while it did elicit violent reactions, was notable for its international reactions alone. By contrast, there's already been both diplomatic and violent reactions to the 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy. As for lasting significant, reliable sources that cover this topic are portraying this event as significant in terms of India's relations with Muslim countries[14][15][16], and BJP's relation with India's 200 million Muslims[17][18][19].VR talk 04:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see that the protests have gone beyond just reactionary, and I would agree this is now in Merge territory (and/or resolve with the comments article, there's no need to have separate articles on these two equivalent events). Just that it was possibly created too soon before a real impact was found. I think most of the examples you give include more than just political reactions or represent atypical comments (eg the Regensburg lecture is rare to have the Vatican involved in a politically charged event), but in general, when comments are made in the course of a known political hotspot, that's not itself a notable event to require an article about. --Masem (t) 16:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. It is getting significant coverage right now.[20][21] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that makes any difference. This event is no more recent than the others described in the main article. What is the point of creating a separate page devoid of all the context, and focusing on arrests and "investigations" and such? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ira Leviton and Iztwoz, this article is 5 times bigger than what has been said "2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy". You should be calling for deletion for 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy because it has basically nothing that hasn't been already said on Nupur Sharma (politician). 122.170.45.106 (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case it would be better to merge the two pages with Nupur Sharma. Iztwoz (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nupur Sharma (politician) is an un-elected politician. Spokesperson are not notable. Nupur Sharma bio clearly fails WP:NPOL. Nupur Sharma bio is a clear violation of WP:BLP1EVENT. Nupur Sharma should be merged to the notable Controversy Event article and not the other way round. Venkat TL (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nupur Sharma's notability has been asked and answered. Why do you persist with the same arguments? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every politician gets election related coverage. Those are not counted for GNG. The bar for politicians is set higher at elected offices. See WP:NPOL she is neither an elected politician and known for 1 event. Fit for merge into the controversy event article. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may have looked small[22] when it was nominated for deletion but it is big now and should not be deleted as media coverage is rampant and investigations and arrests are continuing.[23] REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It now serves a useful purpose - keeping material on this specific series of events from cluttering the main article. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: The aricle is covered by multiple sources WP:N. Wide range of coverage WP:SIGCOV. Ghodbunder (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is significantly different to the controversy one. Keep per WP:CHANCE. This can be revisited once the dust has settled. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Once WP:NOTNEWS violations are removed, this will be entirely similar to the section from which it was forked. Hemantha (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting and thanks for your vote. Do you mind pointing out what policy statement of WP:NOTNEWS does the existence of this article violate? Thank you! NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant with many casualties and obvious importance. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its got more than significant media coverage by national and international news media since a few weeks now. 2406:B400:D5:5490:5F1:DBE8:D092:B378 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is an un-necessary content fork of 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for what it is worth, a similar violence page on Ranchi where 2 people were shot dead has been merged after talk page discussion.Venkat TL (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For at least a month or two, to see if there is ongoing (NOTNEWS) comment. If not, redirect to Kanpur#History, and if not worth mentioning, consider it a pseudo deletion by redirection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no policy-based rationale for deletion. Appears to be a standard type of current-events article that has long been accepted on Wikipedia, and does not correspond to any of the prohibited types of coverage at WP:NOTNEWS. Merging or reconfiguring this content may be appropriate, but that can be done in the fullness of time through the collaborative editing process, away from the toxic zero-sum atmosphere of AFD. -- Visviva (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed El Sahili

Mohamed El Sahili (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)

Very poorly sourced, not in any way notable by WP standards. Fails WP:GNG; WP:BASIC; entrepreneur with cafes feels like UPE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, Africa, and Lebanon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Also I have an eerie feeling this may have been deleted before under some variant of the name. Mccapra (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, I've seen this article somewhere before.--Tysska (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CDG Nepal

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

non-notable website/organisation. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It focuses on Citizens Journalism and is relabel information source in Nepal. So, I think this website is notable. Wikirekhapedia (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)— Wikirekhapedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete the spam and block all the socks. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete not notable plus using wikipedia for adv. DIVINE 📪 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page with does not cite any source AFD message It is genuine online news site but seems lack sufficient sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.8.66 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC) — 49.244.8.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do not delete It is english language online news site of Nepal. Trustworthy source for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netra P. Adhikari (talk • contribs) 12:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC) — Netra P. Adhikari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - failing WP:GNG. Not notable, a search on the Google do not show any reliable source that shows notability, most searches just show about Paris CDG Airport. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harnish Ambaliya

Harnish Ambaliya (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 indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. All work has been with short videos. The "two" references are the same reference which are the website of the school where he is a student. That site does have an in-depth article on him. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awaka Ashta

Awaka Ashta (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)

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Tagged since April. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there appears to be sufficient sourcing to show notability. GiantSnowman 13:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Main Page

William Main Page (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 needed to use double quotes in the search to find much of importance. Almost everything I found is a regurgitation of the article. I could find a single online reliable source from Google Books and it was too insignificant to matter. I could also find this page from the talk page, but it is a biography of another person and is not significant either. The sources given are an obituary (which does not confer notability) and an encyclopedia, which is probably not a significant source. I also found page 120 of "The British Esperantist" on Google Books which mentions him, but does not describe him. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 03:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Language. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 03:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep This is a complicated one. It's always difficult to deal with pre-internet individuals, but in this case the wretched man had the misfortune to get himself a name that defies all reasonable Google searches. If you want your kid to be remembered by posterity and your family name is Main Page, at least name them "Euphyllion Aethelred Main Page", not "William". The question to me is whether he meets notability as an author and possibly academic. If his writings on a notable subject were considered important and influential by his peers, then he might qualify as notable by his authorship. Esperanto is an important topic; my impression is that if he was genuinely "chief collaborator" in the Encyclopedia of Esperanto published in 1933 this probably earns notability on its own: this publication seems to have had influence up to the present day, its articles finding their way into the Esperanto Wikipedia: that suggests lasting influence in his work. I have no idea whether "Pitman's Commercial Esperanto" was considered influential by other Esperantists in his day (remember that notability is not lost; if he would have passed our notability guidelines in 1940, he still passes them today). He was also editor of a few Esperanto journals, and again whether this qualifies him for notability in the way we'd give a modern academic notability for being chief editor of a major journal, I can't tell, because I don't know in how much esteem those journals were held in their day. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Elemimele (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what gets me. Is "Chief Collaborator" a notable role in the writing of the Esperanto Encyclopedia? I need to search to see if the two journals he wrote are anything of importance. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele, @CT55555: After a quick search, it seems that The British Esperantist is a journal from the Esperanto Association of Britain. The page for it says it is more of a magazine and outlet for news related to Esperanto and E.A.B. I cannot find anything mentioning the importance of Esperanto Monthly to the early 20th century Esperanto community. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep ...and I'm open to being persuaded. But assuming good faith for offline sources, it seems he was the editor of not just one but two journals, which gives him a double pass at criterion 8 of WP:NACADEMIC CT55555 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But take into note that the journals must be noteworthy and important to their community. Are these two Esperanto journals important enough to matter? Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He died 122 years ago, so none of the answers to this are likely to be found online. And yet we have 7 days to comment on AfD. The fact that we even know this suggests it was notable somewhat. I can't answer the question about the quality of these journals. That's what I was saying above, I think it's common to give the benefit of the doubt to historical offline things, assume good faith. Which is why I prefaced my "keep" with "weak". Do you think that's a reasonable way to approach this? CT55555 (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is, assuming the benefit of the doubt is important, especially for things like these. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 04:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He died in 1940 and a quick nip into The Scotsman archive for Friday 2 February 1940 finds poor Mr Page collapsed after leaving for work despite feeling unwell. He published a book about Esperanto, apparently. There is no mention of his role as Czech Consul - an odd thing in that article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd agree with the discussions above, assume the good faith. Only source I can find is a doctoral? dissertation from the Netherlands, [26], either in German or Dutch, but it talks a bit about the fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's German. I was able read using google translate and it confirmed his court role, so I added that in. If you have a smart phone, I'd recommend the google translate app and you can use the camera function to read direct off the screen. CT55555 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy's Milk Bar

Wendy's Milk Bar (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)

Some of the text ties back to the company’s website, but much of its appears to be original research as it is uncited. Subject appears to be a run of the mill company, a before search only brings up peripheral mentions.

Article was previously proposed for deletion by JBW and endorsed by TenPoundHammer, this was removed by The Drover's Wife with an edit summary of major national chain for decades, that the article needs a lot of work doesn't change their notability. Glenefill (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My deletion proposal had nothing to do with the article needing "a lot of work"; it was to do with the fact that neither cited in the article nor anywhere else that I can find is there any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article cites no independent sources at all. JBW (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Kpgjhpjm 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been a major chain for decades, and it's completely unsurprising that when I did a newspaper archive search (through NewsBank, which is the one our National Library provides access to) to verify this, taking the time to filter out irrelevant hits (of which there are many, due to other uses of the first name and references to the unrelated US chain), I found abundant, detailed business-section coverage over a very long period of time. The article literally just needs a lot of work. That you haven't heard of a household-name national chain that does not exist in your country ("run-of-the-mill company" my foot) and an article needs work is not a reason for deletion. (NB: It's almost always known as "Wendy's", not "Wendy's Milk Bar", which seems to be a short-lived rebrand attempt some years ago, which would be why your supposed WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up much.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unsourced and I can't find any. If it's notable, I'd expect some sources to turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oaktree b: Where, and under what title, did you not find any? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Gbooks and Google, Gnews has two pages, unsure of which are reliable sources. They should be added to the article if they are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Under which title? (If you're not looking for the company's usual name, Wendy's (without the Milk Bar), no surprise that you didn't find any hits for them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, That you haven't heard of a household-name national chain that does not exist in your country. I was well aware of its existence, but that is not the issue. As it stands, the article remains uncited in clear contravention of WP:V. If cites do exist that would overcome the notability issue, then the best way of maximising the chances of the article surviving would be to add them rather than taking pot shots at other editors. Glenefill (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability depends on the sources that exist, not the current state of the article, and it's very easy to find abundant sources in any database of historical Australian newspapers (as long as one takes the time to filter out the irrelevant hits). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NCORP with the following sources:
  • Germann, Stewart. "An Overview of Franchising in New Zealand". Franchise Law Journal. 39 (1): 95–111. - Relevant content located at the "B. Some Relevant Cases" section
  • "Wendy's Supa Sundaes Pty Ltd. - Company Capsule - ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Retrieved 2022-06-01.
  • Boaz, Alyse (2006). Marketing in New Zealand. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-54779-7.
There is also this detailed source which fails WP:ORGIND due to mainly being based from a co-founder interview but usable for writing an article:
  • Doudle, Chris; Baldwin, Karen (2005). State of Mind: The Success Secrets of 50 South Australian Entrepreneurs. Wakefield Press. ISBN 978-1-86254-684-4.
Jumpytoo Talk 18:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per Jumpytoo's inclusion of sources.ItsMackie (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree, with the new sources found, it's not much, but it helps establish notability, that's all we need. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good sourcing by Jumpytoo, references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Jumpytoo Great job finding sources. Hint: Once you find sources, do the next thing and add them as sources within the article. It is true that their existence, even if not used in the article, bears upon the AFD. But we should be improving articles, not just niffnawng about AFDs. The job was only half done. It's your choice and privilege, but it is my respectful recommendation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Fiji

List of people on the postage stamps of Fiji (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:LISTN. Also: sourced to a general stamp catalogue (not a source which gives attention to the specific topic of people), abandoned since 2011 (ends in 2005), hardly ever read (1 pageview every 4 days or so). Fram (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Oceania. Fram (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a listing of trivia that does not meet the guidelines for lists in Wikipedia. This belongs on Wikia, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no proof that the topic of the list itself is a notable one. After all of these postage stamp list AFDs, no valid reasons to keep have been given. Even if the names can be verified, there is no encyclopedic content for them to be listed per WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies the "navigation" criterion of WP:LISTPURP. Sourced to a specific catalogue for the Western Pacific (not a "general" stamp catalogue as the nomination claims), and, pardon me for having had too busy a life outside of Wikipedia to keep adding entries every few months. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, how is that not a general stamp catalogue? It is not a catalogue of stamps with people on them, it is a general stamp catalogue about all stamps of multiple countries. Fram (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Saint Kitts

List of people on the postage stamps of Saint Kitts (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:LISTN. Also: abandoned, unsourced since its creation, unread (less than 1 visitor every two days). Fram (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Caribbean. Fram (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article itself is unsourced and we have yet to see sources that show that the subject at a whole meets Wikipedia guidelines for lists. This list belongs on Wikia, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no proof that the topic of the list itself is a notable one. After all of these postage stamp list AFDs, no valid reasons to keep have been given. Even if the names can be verified, there is no encyclopedic content for them to be listed per WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Verifiability, no sources. Avilich (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced after seven years, hard to find anything via gSearch that would indicate its notability as a topic. While a general discussion might be nice, it looks like each one of these is meeting the same fate - a large consensus for deletion, so I doubt that it's really necessary. Jacona (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Operation Golden Bird

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Operation Golden Bird (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)

NPOV and article created by a confirmed sock. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1140719/jsp/opinion/story_18628341.jsp#.VXcYi4uUdyw Yes y Yes Paasing mention which is unrelated to the article subject No Paasing mention which is unrelated to the article subject ✘ No
https://www.rediff.com/news/column/china-has-lost-the-jade-kingdom-india-must-not/20120527.htm Yes y Yes Just 1 line sentence No Just 1 line sentence ✘ No
https://www.thequint.com/news/india/before-myanmar-there-were-these-five-great-indian-military-ops#.VXphZxxenxM.twitter Yes y Yes One para about the incident but not about the article No One para about the incident but not about the article ✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/india-seeks-release-of-suu-kyi/article1923867.ece Yes 404 Error Yes 404 Error No Unable to access dead link ✘ No
Troubled Periphery The Crisis of India's North East value not understood no mention value not understood no mention No no mention ✘ No
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1130919/jsp/opinion/story_17355073.jsp#.VXcl5YuUdyw Yes y Yes Nothing except mention No Unable to access dead link ✘ No
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1130919/jsp/opinion/story_17355073.jsp#.VXcl5YuUdyw Yes y Yes from archive, just got mention only No Unable to access dead link ✘ No
https://www.icwa.in/pdfs/IBindiamyanmar.pdf No n No Not reliable as per Wiki No Unable to access dead link ✘ No
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2101/stories/20040116005101500.htm Yes y Yes Unable to access dead link No Unable to access dead link ✘ No
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2101/stories/20040116005101500.htm Yes y Yes Unable to access dead link No Unable to access dead link ✘ No
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/manipur-attack-nscn-k-meitei-northeast-india-act-east-myanmar-isi-ulfa-afspa/story/1/4196.html No n No n No Not realiable source ✘ No
https://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-06/news/47089653_1_weapons-rebels-operation-golden-bird Yes Economics news website No Economics news website No Economics news website ✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/myanmar-key-to-curbing-northeast-border-insurgency-115060700257_1.html Yes Business related website No Business related website No Passing mention ✘ No
https://www.idea.int/asia_pacific/myanmar/upload/chap4.pdf No not found No not found No not found ✘ No
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/army-crossed-border-to-target-militants-in-the-past-too/ Yes y Yes passing single sentence mention only No passing single sentence mention only ✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nsa-skipped-dhaka-trip-to-plan-myanmar-operation/articleshow/47606793.cms value not understood y value not understood - depends No passing mention ✘ No
http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ws241210Foreign_Affairs.asp value not understood - probably value not understood Dead link, can't access No Dead link, can't access ✘ No
https://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091115/edit.htm#2 Yes Dead link, can't access Yes Dead link, can't access No Dead link, can't access ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.


  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Myanmar, and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Operation Golden Bird is a thing, and a notable thing at that. Sock's not good but G5 doesn't apply unless the page was created prior to the sock being blocked. NPOV can be handled through editing, not sure why we'd need to delete a valid page about a demonstrable and notable historical event? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Sock created articles are always a debacle. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover the article wasn't passed through AFC submission. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the article, this is the

Then improve the article. AfD is not for improving articles. Is Operation Golden Bird a thing? It is. Is it a notable thing? It is.

Journal of Defence Studies BBC Making of India's Northeast: Geopolitics of Borderland and Transnational Interactions JAIR Journal of International Relations: Vol. 2, Issue 1, January-June 2015 Myanmar/Burma: Inside Challenges, Outside Interests

There are a ton of sources out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb Take the burden of improving yourself. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb BBC also just passed a Mention only. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even a cursory Google search shows an enormous number of hits for the subject, which is clearly notable. Further, it is not the job of respondents to an AfD to improve the article. It's nice if they do, it's a good outcome, but we're all volunteers, and pressurising volunteers into rushing under threat of deadlines to delete is fundamentally wrong. We don't have a "You do the work or I delete" policy. Instruction C1 in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions is quite clear: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". Elemimele (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Books and academic papers examining the context, execution and consequences of the operation are available from the "Find sources" links above. Hemantha (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost September

Almost September (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:BAND. Coverage presented is passing mentions, catalogue entries. One record didn't chart. One performance mentioned. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Education

Blake Education (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)

Publishing company that doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP. Mikeblas (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the promotional tone, I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that the page looks WP:PROMO-- it looks sincere to me, created way back in 2006, but simply fails to meet WP:NCORP and would appear unlikely to. I couldn't find any RSs. Cabrils (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I rarely weigh on on Australian subjects, but this one has only two dead links to apparently primary sources, and I didn't find any WP:RS in a gSearch. If someone could provide some, maybe I'd change my mind. Jacona (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hail the Sun. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Melero

Donovan Melero (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:SINGER - no reliable sourcing here, we have Facebook, Reddit, a blog post and owned media. The group Hail the Sun is arguably notable, its singer is arguably not. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 12:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dayouth

Dayouth (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 a notable topic in its own right. Only discussed within the broader context of sexuality in Islam, and basically as a trivial mention where it does occur in scholarly literature. Overlaps with the Anglosphere term cuckold and should be redirected there (where the more useful parts have already been copied to). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Nick Moyes (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Assembly Rooms

Derby Assembly Rooms (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:BUILD. The only notability presented here is one local, one trade and and one national media clips, all related to its forthcoming demolition. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: found this and this, which has plenty of quotes et al. detailing notability of building culturally/architecturally/historically. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources in the article and those shared above. NemesisAT (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Covered in nationally notable sources, mentioned by Iseult, which I've now inserted. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination Happy to strike, thanks to all above. It's a bloody horrible building though... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexandermcnabb Yeah - it's a terrible design, though I miss using it a lot. I was amused that it caught fire on the very day back in March 2014 that Derby Council were forced to back down after I and my local Wildlife Trust initiated a Judicial Review for their attempt to destroy a designated Local Nature Reserve in the city that I had created, purely so that they could build an outdoor cycle track next to the velodrome/Arena. We joked that they set light to the Assembly Rooms car park deliberately in order to detract from their planning incompetence and illegal actions! LOL. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamotte-Beuvron station

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

Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Unclear if there is any importance to this particular station; appears to be non-notable. Paradoxsociety 01:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and France. Paradoxsociety 01:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Necrothesp - I saw WP:STATION prior to nominating, but it was less than clear that there's any "longstanding consensus" regarding "all railway stations" being notable. Is there another page indicating this strong consensus? If this is indeed the case can we make an effort to update the essay? I'd be happy to join you in discussing further on the essay's talk page. Paradoxsociety 23:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not written down anywhere. A number of editors have decided that this is the way it is and they usually overpower everyone else so that these articles are always kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Trainsandotherthings for the explanation. I'm just getting active again with AfD after being away for a while so I appreciate you letting me know about this. Paradoxsociety 03:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Trainsandotherthings does not like the consensus, but that does not make it any less of a consensus as any look at previous AfDs will show. Maybe they'd like to show us instances where railway stations have been deleted at AfD? Because consensus on notability is largely made at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Necrothesp does not like consistent application of our policies and guidelines. Maybe you would like to explain why we should ignore WP:STATION, WP:GNG, and even WP:NOPAGE, the latter of which states that "What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." as well as "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" and most crucially "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page." But Necrothesp is not open to considering these alternatives in favor of simply keeping large numbers of permastubs like this one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. WP:STATION is an essay. Consensus has very clearly been to keep railway station articles. So, I ask you again, please show us instances where railway stations have been deleted at AfD. Because plenty of them have been nominated. What, you can't? That's consensus! And Wikipedia works on consensus, not on unbending application of non-existent "rules". As I have said many times, if this was the case then we wouldn't have AfD discussions; we'd just mandate admins to delete any article they thought wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm sure you vehemently defended the consensus of the 2019 RfC that determined there explicitly was not a consensus that all stations are notable? And anyway, Consensus can change. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, the classic "consensus can change" argument always trotted out by editors who want it to change and think that by saying that they think it should change it has changed. Show me the evidence that it has changed then. I believe that's the third time I've asked! Consensus can indeed change, but it clearly has not changed in this instance. Your opinion does not equal consensus. Consensus equals consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why was the actual explicit consensus at that RfC ignored? JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly did not read the closer's statement. The issue was that the definition of a railway station was not clearly defined. A little odd, but there you have it. But this clearly is a railway station by any definition of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added my thoughts to the essay, namely that we should at least try to find some historical record of the particular station building and use that in the article, rather that simply having a sub article about the "shed by the tracks at xyz location". Many hundred of these stations are built to a standard design so it's hard (but not impossible) to find some description of one the particular station "styles" and use it for our purposes. I've been going to Gallica at the BNF and looking in old books or newspapers to find some mention of the station that can be used to beef up the article. Otherwise I usually won't bother with the article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge to Orléans–Montauban railway. Not notable enough for a standalone page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep for essentially the same reasons as JoellyJay. Thank you to Jumpytoo for actually finding sources, something the usual editors at these AfDs never seem to do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly likely to be offline and non-English sources for a French railway station opened in 1847. Regardless, I strongly feel keeping station articles is beneficial to Wikipedia's readers as it allows them to be easily navigated using the "adjacent stations" templates as well as allowing them to show up in the "Nearby" feature for mobile users. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is just no need to be strict about railway station articles. NemesisAT (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:But there must be sources!. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per TAOT. Can someone point to an offline source that is extremely likely to give SIGCOV to this station? Can anyone even offer a P&G-based argument to keep? Project-level essays obviously don't count toward this. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a few sources that discuss the station to meet WP:GNG:
  • Humbert, Georges Charles (1893). Traité des chemins de fer d'intérêt local: chemins de fer à voie étroite, tramways, chemins de fer à crémaillère et funiculaires (in French). Baudry et cie. - From Google Translate, seems to provide a description of the station layout.
  • "LONG FORMAT. Et si Lamotte-Beuvron accueillait les JO 2024 ?" (in French). 2018-04-18. - The "Aménagement de la gare de Lamotte" section talks about how the railway station affects a local horse racing complex.
  • "Lamotte-Beuvron : les usagers de la gare paieront deux fois…". Magcentre (in French). Retrieved 2022-06-06. - A very short article, but describes controversy for an hidden fee increase for tickets from the station.
Jumpytoo Talk 23:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Gallica, I found [27], a report by the engineer who built the line to the city/municipal council about this particular section. It's rather dry but can be used to beef up the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Railway stations have always been deemed worthy enough to have an article. I've translated a few of these from French; I mean, they give a description, location and trains served. 150 yr old plus buildings, most aren't recognized or having the French equivalent of a National Register of Historic Places listing. We either keep all of them or delete all of them, they're all pretty much the same as this one. Not sure an AFD debate is enough, this should be brought to a policy board so we can establish something as a rule. Soft keep would be my vote, otherwise we'd just be deleting hundreds/thousands of articles here... Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sy station [28] was my most recent translation. It's a "shed beside a track where trains have stopped for over 100 yrs", to put it in a nutshell. You'll get the scattered mention of some event in a local newspaper of something happening at the station or a train hitting a person, it's all pretty routine. I'd prefer if we kept them and I enjoy translating them, but that's my two cents. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant coverage in reliable sources. See for instance this news article: the station sees 190,000 passengers a year. Markussep Talk 11:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've updated the essay on station notability with a few things I've noticed translating these articles [29]; at the very least, we have historical descriptions of this particular station as described above and more recent media coverage of ridership levels and what have you. I'm thinking we at least have context for the station, rather than a bare-bones article simply giving a geographical location and number of tracks it has. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Jumpytoo and Oaktree b. I definitely agree a discussion should be had somewhere more visible on the way we approach these articles. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polish National Catholic Church of The Holy Cross (Brooklyn)

Polish National Catholic Church of The Holy Cross (Brooklyn) (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:NCHURCH and WP:NBUILD guide us here and an individual church with no other claim to notability is not considered inherently notable. Added to that, here we have an individual church that is no longer - it has been demolished. The article is about the building, not the splinter faith which is partly conflated in the article but which has its own page. Take out the faith content (repeat of the PNCC article) and you have a building that is no longer. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no good secondary sources found. Sources in article are either not independent or unrelated to the building/congregation proper. Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anyone finds RIS in Polish. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've taken out the general PNCC material and cleaned it up a little. The citation situation is a mess (and unfortunately I've made it a bit messier.) It looks like there is some stuff published about this Church in particular, but it's tough to track down and a lot of it is going to be undigitized or not available in full. See for instance[30], which is about the Church's cemetery, but includes a bunch of info on the church. There was also a Polish language newspaper in New York City. --Jahaza (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jahaza, I see in that Google Books entry info on the cemetery with the church mentioned, but my preview doesn't give me the church's paragraphs. Do you mind quoting some? Iseult Δx parlez moi 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Sounds like it was a fairly typcial local church of no great notability, even when it existed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. Article was restored against the consensus formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). I have redirected it once again. ✗plicit 00:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gourd Creek

Gourd Creek (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:GEOLAND. No non-database/map entries. Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the consensus was redirectDjflem (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this has already been decided at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). This is a unnecessary 2nd nomination. The consensus at 1st- redirect appears to not have been carried out. Would suggest that be done and this AFD withdrawn.Djflem (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close. Article was restored against the consensus formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). I have redirected it once again. ✗plicit 00:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary)

Beaver Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary) (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 sourcing beyond database entries and maps (which are incorrect in the article body). Otherwise fails WP:GEOLAND. Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously user Iseult doesn't understand the value of nor how to read a topographic map. The DeLorme atlas used as a reference here is based on the USGS topographic map of the area. The map shows the relationship of the stream course to other geographic features in the area: roads, other communities and the general topography of the area the stream flows through. How else do you describe a stream? The GNIS description page for the feature includes a small scale portion of the relevant USGS topo map. Vsmith (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the specific coordinates given in the article body, which are incorrect, as I've checked them on Google Maps and OpenStreetMap. I do appreciate your concern for my understanding, though. Iseult Δx parlez moi 16:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The body of maps and atlases have an unlimited number of bodies of water and other physical features, but that is not the basis for notability: WP:GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." We just have existence of the subject with its location sourced to maps, which is insuffient coverage to establish notabilty. Streams' routes can indeed be described from a map, but it takes more to warrant an entry here. Reywas92Talk 13:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good map shows the "existence" of the subject as well as its relationship to other places. A stream course (or route) on a map does indeed show its relationship to other geographic features which it passes. But it seems the rather ill-defined "notability" question arises. What makes a geographic feature "notable"? I suppose that if some politician or two-bit actor went skinny-dipping in the stream and the event was "covered" by the news folk ... it would be "notable" eh? Vsmith (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you still saying that? No, that would not make the stream notable. What makes it notable is coverage about the subject itself. Reywas92Talk 23:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this has already been decided at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). This is a unnecessary 2nd nomination. The consensus at 1st- redirect appears to not have been carried out. Would suggest that be done and this AFD withdrawn.Djflem (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Malerkotla State#List of Rulers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Muhammad Khan of Malerkotla

Sher Muhammad Khan of Malerkotla (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)

Has not much information beyond that available at Malerkotla State#List of Rulers. Can be redirected back there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikan Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khan Bahadur Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Umar Khan of Malerkotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Asadullah Khan of Malerkotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ataullah Khan of Malerkotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muhammad Wazir Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahbub Ali Khan of Malerkotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sikandar Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muhammad Ibrahim Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jamal Khan of Malerkotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ghulam Hussain Khan of Malerkotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Feroz Khan of Malerkotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muhammad Bayazid Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khan Fateh Muhammad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khan Muhammad Ishaq Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khan Muhammad Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2022-05 ✗ deleted ← 2022-05 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE and SALT all. The closing date already expired. Close with DELETE. Wiki doesn't need just a sentence. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Deb (talk · contribs) per A7. Page has also been salted. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pradeepa Sudhakar

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

Subject does not qualify as notable per any SSG, article has no references, no argument for or evidence of notability. A loose necktie (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Deer Island (Massachusetts). Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Almshouse, Deer Island

New Almshouse, Deer Island (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 real indication of importance. The three sources given are, first, a Flickr album, then two sources regarding structures or memorials on Deer Island today, neither of which mention the almshouse by any of the names given in the article. This might be nitpicking, but the Present Day section, where the latter two citations are made, seems to be WP:OR. Google searches don't turn up significant secondary sources regarding the subject of the article. Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, good point. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurum Ventures

AfDs for this article:
Aurum Ventures (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)

Since this is a company, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. None of the reference meet NCORPs criteria for establishing notability as they are based on routine company announcements and PR (no "Independent Content") or are brief mentions which are neither WP:CORPDEPTH in-depth nor significant. HighKing++ 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree, fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article listing the buying and selling activities of an investment firm. Such transactions are the day-to-day business of such a firm, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH (as do the various media searches linked above). Nor does anything in the article text indicate encyclopaedic notability; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under WP:G4 by admin Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamla Hamla Jhamela

AfDs for this article:
Mamla Hamla Jhamela (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)

Mamla Hamla Jhamela

Unreleased film that was already deleted once and still does not satisfy film notability or general notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamla Hamla Jhamela. There is nothing in the article having to do with significant coverage of the film or its production, and not even a mention of when the film was produced or will be produced. The film appears to be in some sort of development limbo, and an article was deleted once, and should be deleted again. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atherwood

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

Likely does not need meet notability criteria for a separate article. Tow (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose/Keep. I have added sources and a section that describes the significance of the housing development and the name. Forevaclevah (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Could you give me a day or two to update the sources section? I have a few more direct sources to include. Thank you. Will aka forevaclevah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevaclevah (talk • contribs) 05:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, or merge to Redwood City, California. Clearly a populated place with some history that is distinct to itself rather than being tied to its city. BD2412 T 05:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks to me like this place has been the subject of in-depth discussion in independent sources. That means it makes the grade. A loose necktie (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinitoni Falatau

Kinitoni Falatau (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. No WP:SIGCOV exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cant find articles about him, other than stats. Since NFOOTY no longer exists, it does not meet GNG and should be deleted.Samanthany (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Dominican Republic

List of people on the postage stamps of the Dominican Republic (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)

Yet another non-notable list of people on postage stamps. Not going through PROD since this has non-inline sources and Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) made some minor edits recently, but thosr references are two well-known stamp catalogs (Scott catalogue and Stanley Gibbons catalogue) and have no bearing on WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. BD2412 T 05:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stamp catalogs are an indiscrminate listing of all stamps. They cannot be used to show that a specific grouping of stamps is worth having a complete listing artilce of. We need some sources beyond this which we do not have. This list is about half people who we lack articles on, Wikipedia lists in general should be limited to people we have articles on. Exceptions to that rule need really, really good sourcing. I am guessing some of the redlinks are actually to people we have articles on, it is just the article name is different than how it was formed in the redlink. This is a general sign that this article does not receive enough attention to be good. That is not a reason to delete, but the general not meeting the guidelines for lists is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This list seems to too slavishly follow the source catalogs even when they are just plain wrong. One entry on it is Maetos Cabral who is said to have been the president of the Dominican Republic. I am assuming having looked over the list of presidents of the Dominican Republic the person meant is most likely Marcos Antonio Cabral. However I have no sourcing at hand that Marcos Antonio Cabral was actually the person pictured on the postage stamp. This list, like the South Korea list, illustrates the problems with people who do not understand a culture creating a huge list. This is exactly why most lists require that the links be either to existing articles or that every point be sourced. Otherwise we have people putting in things without understanding it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no proof that the topic of the list itself is a notable one. After all of these postage stamp list AFDs, no valid reasons to keep have been given. Even if the names can be verified, there is no encyclopedic content for them to be listed per WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. Also, Johnpacklambert's comments above indicate that even the sources being used have their own issues. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an indiscriminate list. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While a general discussion might be nice, Wikipedia is not a directory, not indiscriminate, and requires WP:V by WP:RS. This fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and nothing useful comes up when I attempt to search it. These articles are wending their way through AfD, and I haven't noticed any passing, so it appears WP:CONSENSUS is against keeping them. Jacona (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Corner, Virginia

Campbell Corner, Virginia (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)

Some of the last stragglers of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia. These all appear to be named named road junctions or survey points, not communities. I've been able to turn up a single reference to an alcohol-related arrest at Campbell Corner, if this is the right Dentons Corner than its just a survey point at the corner of somebody's field, I can find nothing significant for Eldridge Corner, and all I'm getting for Woods Corner in a shopping center a good way off near Newport News. None of these seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG.

Also included are the following. Sprouses Corner, Virginia has more coverage and is not included in this nomination.

Dentons Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eldridge Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Woods Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - GNIS spam, cited only to a source that is unreliable for whether a place is populated or not. No evidence of legal recognition at all present here, and as such this is a WP:GEOLAND#1 fail. FOARP (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Foreign relations of Nepal. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Nepal, Riyadh

Embassy of Nepal, Riyadh (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:GNG. Gnews shows some routine announcements by the embassy but nothing indepth about the embassy. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Bogotá

Embassy of Turkey, Bogotá (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)

Declined prod. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Breton (band). Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Rappak

Roman Rappak (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)

fail to see how Rappak is notable outside of Breton (band) as all coverage relating to him is actually about the band itself. Miro Shot isn't notable and we obviously have no article so there's no worry about inappropriate redirect since one to Breton would be suitable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is Miro Shot not notable? Is being called the concert of the future not enough for Wikipedia? In addition to putting together his discography of various artist credits, I was also working on adding how Roman now has a metaverse startup called Ristband which is getting traction (see also: MusicAlly)
Was working on a Miro Shot article, too, but if you're saying they're not noteable enough, then I guess I won't bother. Kibbe (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes did not call Miro Shot the "concert of the future" (or anything else of the future). The article listed them as one example of a band that has experimented with new technologies. That is the case with the BBC and Music Ally articles too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Breton (band), as that band has an established article. All of Rappak's media coverage is in conjunction with activities that were actually conducted by Breton or Miro Shot, and he does not inherit notability as an individual. As I commented above, Miro Shot has gotten some notice as one example of a band that has experimented with new technologies, but once again that coverage is about them and not about Rappak as an individual. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Urwa-Tul-Wusqa

Tafsir Urwa-Tul-Wusqa (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 PRODD this article it was deprodded by Kvng with the reason "77 incoming links indicate potential importance". No edits have been made to the article or sources added since then. The article is a three sentence uncited article about an Urdu tafsir. It has been tagged with multiple issues since 2016. Both "further reading" links are dead. There is no English language coverage of the book. I don't know Urdu but there also appears to be almost no Urdu coverage of this book either. In Urdu, like in English, just book piracy websites seem to show up. It fails all the criteria for WP:BK imo Zaynab1418 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsure of the sources found in Gbooks, none seem to be about this topic. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hypothetical sources don't need entertaining. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community source

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

This page is a mess and I'm not sure if there is anything worth salvaging here. It is actually about two completely different things. It starts out talking about a particular approach to open source software development used in higher education – the elements of which aren't actually unique to the higher education sector. I'm not convinced that concept is notable enough for its own article, and the extent to which this article covers it seems rather excessive in proportion to its notability – although possibly it could be briefly mentioned in some article about open source software development models or software in higher education.

The rest of the page is essentially just a double of source-available software. Some source-available software licenses have had the phrase "Community License" in their name, but that doesn't mark out some distinctive category of source-available software licenses–it is just a phrase which has attracted some people.

Having an article about two unrelated uses of the same phrase (in the same field of endeavour) is likely to mislead readers into thinking one has something to do with the other. Mr248 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: If you look at Google Scholar, one finds quite a few journal articles and conference papers about this. However, they are mostly from 10 years ago, and you'll notice a lot of them are all authored by the same researcher. I think it is easy for an academic to come up with a label for some variation on the open source model, and manage to get a burst of papers published on it, and even get a few other academics to publish on it too. That doesn't mean that variation needs its whole own article. It might be notable enough for a brief mention in another article, but still doesn't seem sufficiently distinctive from the main topic to warrant an entire article to itself. Also, given the two completely unrelated ways this term "community source" is used (on the one hand, as a particular way of doing open source software, or even just as a synonym for open source software; on the other hand, s a synonym for source-available software), trying to determine its notability by searching produces a mixture of sources about those two unrelated meanings of the term. Mr248 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It looks like a quirky phrase that has not received common use outside of single researcher and colleagues. --mikeu talk 16:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Lima

Embassy of Turkey, Lima (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:GNG. Gnews only reveals 1 hit for Turkish name. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Turkey. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Guatemala City

Embassy of Turkey, Guatemala City (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:GNG. could only find 1 useful source about its opening, otherwise no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siuloa Fahina

Siuloa Fahina (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. No WP:SIGCOV exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural keep. Trolling. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Shippuden: Legends: Akatsuki Rising

Naruto Shippuden: Legends: Akatsuki Rising (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 by mistakes, I should need to deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserX Y Found (talk • contribs)

  • Keep @UserX Y Found: That's not a valid deletion reason. The article has existed on Wikipedia for 9 years, with contributions from many other users. You are not its owner. The game exists (or existed) and received reviews in mainstream gaming journals, so it appears to pass the criteria for inclusion. Also, since the original article was created by Deepak Raj at the XY Foundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), we have only your word for it that you are the same person. (And, incidentally, since Deepak Raj was blocked in 2013, the creation of this new account appears to be a case of sock puppetry for the purpose of block evasion.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep Original article version is not that of the original by far, and once you contributed, it became unrevocable per Creative Commons and the GFDL, which you see on every edit page. No issue with this article as-is, and the SOCK issue should be dealt with properly. Nate • (chatter) 22:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game got 15 reviews, proving it's notable. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my user name User:Deepak Raj at the XY Foundation. UserX Y Found (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_7&oldid=1093577616"