< January 30	February 01 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Græger[edit]

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

Nonnotable scholar, tagged since 2010, no improvmnt Loew Galitz (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has more than a few hits in Gbooks, not sure how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the nominator elaborate why the scholar is nonnotable? Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Scholar shows articles by a Nina Græger [1] but this scholar is at the University of Copenhagen and her home page doesn't mention either the Journal listed on the page nor the Norwegian institute she presumably is employed at. Either the information in the article is wrong (and it is not backed up by sources) or we have two people with the same name, only one of which can I find academic output for. Lamona (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in 2019 she moved from Oslo, Norway to the University of Copenhagen (and I put the information provided by the department into her page). No comment yet on notability, but I will see what I can find about coverage of her work on diplomacy and Scandinavian countries. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither her citation record nor her administrative position as head of department stand out as something that could pass WP:PROF. Web searches found nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close comment: For academics, WP:NPROF works around GNG, because citing a work is the way that academics give another academic sigcov, so to speak. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 7 February 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!} 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion survivor[edit]

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

ALL of the content is Original Research WP:OR. This term is suitable for a dictionary, NOT an encyclopedia article. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content is not original research, as even a modicum of looking for sources on the subject finds supporting material. It's just a totally absurd structure and scope for an article, with a name conjured by a Wikipedia editor out of thin air, based upon no actual expert writings on the subject but rather upon some wacky headlinese, and a parochial U.S.-centric bias. The actual concept in U.S.-centric sources is live birth. This is the name used in Ackerman and Strong's A Casebook of Medical Ethics (1983, ISBN 9780195039177), for example. It's the name used in the "Legal issues in neonatal-perinatal medicine" chapter of Fanaroff and Martin's Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine E-Book: Diseases of the Fetus and Infant (2010, Elsevier, ISBN 9780323081115) The concept in U.K.-centric sources (although it has the same name in countries such as Australia) is the legal notion of child destruction.
Both are low quality, but already existing, articles. If you want to see how bad our latter article really is, contrast it with John Keown's 22-page treatment of the subject in the "The scope of the offence of child destruction" chapter of xyr The Law and Ethics of Medicine (OUP, 2012, ISBN 9780199589555) or Kristin Savell's treatment (of it, the born-alive rule, wardship, and other subjects) in xyr "The mother of the legal person" chapter of Visible Women: Essays on Feminist Legal Theory and Political Philosophy (2002, Hart, ISBN 9781841131955). Our article on live birth (human) can similarly be contrasted with Faranoff and Martin, which explains for starters that there were state law legal frameworks for what constitutes a live birth as well. Helen M. Alvaré's "Abortion, Sexual Markets, and the Law" chapter of Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments (Springer, 2011, ISBN 9789400716025) even quotes the law of Maine which actually has "live birth" in the statute.
That the existing articles on the actual subjects are piss-poor is no reason to start a new separate article with a clickbait name taken from a BBC News headline, however.
Uncle G (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is seriously flawed for many reasons, most blatantly the USA-centric nature of how it's written. CT55555 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I think this article is about a newly created phrase WP:NEO and I think it is pushing a point of view WP:NOTADVOCATE and most importantly WP:NOTSOAPBOX CT55555 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment User:Avatar317 you are not getting much input here, and that may be because the AfD doesn't appear on any thematic AfD notification pages. Maybe some social science and health AfD lists would be appropriate. Sorry, I'd do that myself, but I don't know how. CT55555 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 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 Noah Becker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehot (magazine)[edit]

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

This article on an art magazine does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP for notability. The sourcing in the article consists of one primary source to the magazine itself, and three sources that do not mention the WhiteHot magazine at all (it does mention a gallery with a similar name, White Box, so not sure why that is.) A WP:BEFORE search brings up hits for social media, primary sourcing to the magazine or its founder, but no verifiable in-depth significant coverage on the magazine itself can be found. Bringing it here to seek feedback from the community. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noah Becker until we find better sources. I see at least 38 articles where the magazine is cited, so not having anything at all would be a loss. Vexations (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello Vexations, Redirecting to Noah Becker is a good suggestion, and I agree it is an alternative to deletion. For some reason, I don't find the same information in my searches, only social media-type postings (maybe a geographic google glitch?) The article has one citation to itself, and three NYT articles that don't mention Whitehot at all - they mention WhiteBox (a really great alternative space in NYC, but a separate entity). Whitehot has reviewed some shows at WhiteBox, but notability is not inherited. If two or three good sources about Whitehot magazine can be found, I will withdraw the nom, if not redirecting is fine with me. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have expressed myself better: I meant that I can find 38 Wikipedia articles that cite Whitehot Magazine. There are likely a few more. I think it is generally considered a good practice to link the name of a magazine in a source to the article about the magazine, so it would be a good thing to have something we can link to. Vexations (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noah Becker as an ATD. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noah Becker. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG for the purposes of earning its own standalone article, but it's clearly semi-notable enough to at least warrant a redirect to the notable artist who launched it so that a person who looks for it will land on something useful. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noah Becker, indeed. This web art magazine is very active.Valueyou (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noah Becker per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:10, 7 February 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!} 23:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Turkmenistan relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There's not much for these relations except a few state visits. No embassies, agreements or significant trade. The fact that Turkmenistan bought a ferry from Croatia hardly adds to relations. LibStar (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for sources in Croatian, and all I found was cursory press coverage of two presidential visits, which isn't actually WP:SIGCOV of international relations, rather a WP:NOT#NEWS violation. This is another article in search of a topic like the one about Croatia and Mongolia that took us a decade to get rid of *facepalm* Delete. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, moderate-high confidence on this one after seeing Joy's analysis of Croatian-language sources and my own search for English-language sources. I only found a document that can attest to the fact that relations between the two countries were established in 1996 [2]. A Russian-language (and/or Turkmen-language if anybody knows that language here) search would probably be useful to get 100% certainty, but it as it stands it doesn't look like there's a notable relationship. Pilaz (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom there are No embassies, agreements or significant trade.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 7 February 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. I wrote up a lengthy closing statement, and had it frustratingly erased by an edit-conflict. So I'll summarize by saying that arguments on both sides here are generally based in policy, and cannot simply be set aside; reasonable editors can and do disagree on whether the sources provided here are substantive. Given the high participation, there seems to be no purpose served by relisting. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tinney[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Newimpartial with the following rationale "Additional secondary source added; meets NBASIC". I am afraid I disagree, the new source seems like a brief press release. I stand by my view that this person does not meet NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the threshold for significant coverage is whether the (independent, reliable) source contributes material from which an encyclopaedic article can be written. This is clearly the case for at least two sources used in the present article; it therefore meets NBASIC and therefore WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial, as I believe VG247 which Newimpartial added is a WP:RS source. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps at all, the Vice article I added has a little more information about him. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would seem that he could qualify under WP:NCREATIVE#3 having a collective body of work he was a creator or co-creator of. Part of this has to be taken at face value of WP editors that came before, but I will WP:AGF. Clearly part of the body of work seems to be Mind's Eye Theatre (for being specifically called out by Appelcline in Designers & Dragons, which seemed to cover him pretty broadly according to the article) and Rage (where there are only two creatives listed). That's a body right there that would qualify when pushing NCREATIVE to its limit. That plus the ability to actually write the biographical information thanks to the Designers & Dragons book push past failing WP:NOTRESUME/WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That alone is a bit thin, but following the pages linking to him, he's also a designer of Aberrant, Hunter: The Reckoning, and Vampire: The Requiem. These games list many more designers, so it's a bit harder to judge his individual contributions, but I don't think they should be dismissed. The World of Darkness series post 2002 probably would probably add more to his body of work given the statement by Appelcline that games in the line underwent massive changes, but I can't really verify much beyond that, so this part just nudges me past weak keep, and definitly past a redirect (although redirecting to White Wolf Publishing might make sense, it does face WP:X or Y problems, dismissing more specific works). -2pou (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Mind's Eye Theatre is the single most important credit, and it is worth noting that "Line manager" in the RPG space is primarily a creative/game design position, not a marketing position. The subject's work in LARP, tabletop and CCG domains mitigates against any redirect options.

The article, of course, sucks, but that isn't a policy-relevant argument at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming this is the same guy who is getting RS news coverage for the fitness startup mentioned at the end of the article. Content like this makes me strongly suspect they are. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Rage (collectible card game). Fails WP:NBIO. Like most game designers, this individual has not received in-depth, independent coverage by reliable secondary sources. The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, like keep !votes have suggested, it's the lack of significant coverage of the subject of the article, which is a requisite for NBIO. I also don't think that WP:NCREATIVE#3 applies when the body of work has not been covered by independent and/or reliable sources; and X or Y "problems" are not real problems when the page gets 1 view a day. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources presented below with respect to the health-gaming startup of the subject of this article are all industry-related PR press. They also either do not cover the subject in depth, or when they do it's in the format of interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY and not independent from the author, and therefore do count towards WP:NBIO in my view. Pilaz (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the four references are press releases that are about company mergers. The fourth reference is a very brief announcement. I don't have access to the first reference, which does seem substantial. But that's only one reference. Looking in Google books I can find him mentioned once in this book, once in another book. There's a Mike Tinney who wrote "The Secret Life of the Pencil" but I can't ascertain if it's the same person. I'm just not finding enough for an article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[3] is largely about the subject. [4] is about his work, but he's quoted a fair bit. There are plenty of sources like that one. With the first source in the article, I think we are past WP:N. Keep. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of the individual in the sources is not sufficient in-depth to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: most of the article, and in particular the quasi-totality of the Appelcline-sourced paragraph, is word-for-word plagiarism of Appelcline's second edition of the volume Designers & Dragons (vol 3: '90-'99). Please see the template on the article for more information. Editors wishing to contribute to this AfD are recommended to look at the history to get a full picture of the state of the article prior to replying to this AfD. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see that I unfortunately copied the first sentence word-for-word when I started the article in 2015, and the rest of that paragraph has some close paraphrasing and a few phrases copied verbatim; I rewrote that section under Talk:Mike Tinney/Temp per the instructions, so please review to make sure it is rewritten sufficiently. BOZ (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed, de-plagiarized imo. A link on Talk:Mike Tinney to the temp is the next step, BOZ. I'm going to ask the copyvio admins/clerks if they can make this article skip the line, given that it's at AfD. Pilaz (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the rewrite and it's acceptable and have installed it in the article. Thanks BOZ for taking the time to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a very short article based on several secondary sources now, which is, as Newimpartial has already said, the basic criterion for notability. The discussion here has also turned up several more sources, so someone unhappy with the current length could use those to expand the article. Daranios (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure if the articles that are currently in there make Tinney notable enough, but I think all of them plus his work as the CEO of FIX Health *do* make him pass WP:NBIO. Other sources include (and to be clear, not all of these are probably reliable sources, but this is just me cherrypicking the first few that have shown up): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Nomader (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White Wolf Publishing or, alternatively, if there is no agreeable redirect target, delete. No source has been provided that shows Tinney himself as the subject of coverage. He is covered peripherally in relation to White Wolf, thus that is how we should cover him as well. The fitness press above (including Benefit News) is all puff press, quoting him as CEO but not giving any actual detail on him or his life or even the company. czar 16:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to White Wolf Publishing, per Czar.--Alexandra^IDV 10:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: As written this is not a biography or even close. Fails NBIO and SIGCOV. I don't understand the want or need to keep pseudo biographies. In this case supported by industry related sources (clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT or reliable) such as this, that jumps on the side of advertising. A company source that gives passing mention is not a biographical source (might be acceptable as content sourcing but not advancing notability) leaving the article looking like a resume and not a biography. We should be very clear on biographies and not "assume" or surmise if there is notability for an article, using respected mainstream publications. At present this article is about the career of a subject (or related companies) with zero customary biographical information such as when born etc... -- Otr500 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All other arguments notwithstanding, WP:RESUME does not apply to this case, nor is Mike Tinney known "only in connection with a single event". Daranios (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to this vote, I would point out that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP - the vote doesn't address the Notability of the BLP subject at all, only the current article, and is therefore strictly irrelevant at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It addresses the concerns of the nominator, which are NBIO and SIGCOV, which are both integral parts of our notability guidelines, and it discusses several sources in detail. That's unquestionably more source analysis than you have provided in this discussion. Pilaz (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This fails WP:BIO. Otr500 is spot on. Not sure where you'd merge this to, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A "ditto" !vote to a non-policy-based rationale is essentially a null !vote, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 8 February 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 04:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree homomorphism[edit]

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

No sources cited; unknown notability per WP:GNG (perhaps someone more knowledgeable can improve this stub). Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hundreds of citation on Google Scholar with few false positives that I can see suggest that this is a wiki-notable topic, though it's just far enough from my wheelhouse that I probably wouldn't be the best suited to winnow out the most important things to say about it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tree homomorphisms in general are notable, but the definition in this article doesn't leave a lot of room for interesting things to be said: if there is a tree homomorphism per the given definition from T1 to T2 then we know that we can get a tree isomorphic to T1 from T2 by pruning edges. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it's a real, notable thing, and thus the question is: is it possible for this article to be more than just a dictionary definition? PianoDan (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the concept defined by this stub is worth having an article on; it's close to trivial. Our article tree transducer draws heavily on https://hal.inria.fr/hal-03367725/document which has a quite different and more interesting definition of tree homomorphism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OK, based on that, I'll trust your judgement that there's not enough there to ever be more than a definition, and WP:NOTDICT holds. PianoDan (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this belongs on the science delsort. It's a purely mathematical topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a large section Tree_(data_structure)#Mathematical_definition where the homomorphism definition could possibly be merged into. However, as far as I know, there are several approaches to describe trees in a mathematical way (not mentioning them all is a shortcoming of the section, imo), and I'm not sure that the approach presented in the section is compatible with the approach presented here. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. While the definition given is mathematically natural, for the reason I gave in my comment above it does not appear to be of much interest. I've checked this by looking at the three highest cited articles with tree homomorphism in the title and none of them used the same definition as the article but investigated less rigid notions of homomorphism. Skimming the other abstracts, the most popular definition seems to be the one coming from the theory of tree transducers. We should treat the article as original research. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sources to meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 4 February 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!} 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Secular[edit]

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

Non notable political party, a before search shows me hits in unreliable sources that have no reputation for fact checking and a plethora of press releases. Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely being a political party does not equate to notability. SANTADICAE🎅 18:35, 7 February 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!} 23:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalen Chase[edit]

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

He appears not to be notable outside of a band that never really made it off the ground and is notable only for certain people involved in it aside from Chase. I previously PRODded this, but it has been refunded. No attempt to improve the article has been made. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete Other than the "American Songwriter" interview, seems to be mostly mentions of him in other articles. Would support a keep vote if more reliable sources can be found directly about him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 31 January 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!} 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CHUMBA Racing[edit]

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

Needs broader conversation than PROD. Possibly the best source, but questions remain as to RS level, and it's not enough for GNG. There are listings such as this and similar present in the article, but there's no indication they're independent and definitely not of the in depth required for WP:ORG. They're currently described as a blog site related to betting on cycling, but that doesn't appear to have engendered any more coverage than their time as a bike manufacturer. Star Mississippi 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. No indepth significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:36, 7 February 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) 08:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Syed[edit]

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

Another non-notable Minor League Cricket player. Like similar articles created by this user, there is an erroneous claim that the player has played in matches that held List A and Twenty20 status; as with others they have created, this simply isn't the case. The matches in the ICC World Cricket League Division 4 fail the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines too. StickyWicket (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As I've said before in a similar Afd, there are way too many misinformations in the articles, with the sources mentioning none of the claims made. Human (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and hasn't played in a notable enough match either. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Joseph2302's comments, fails cricket guidelines (even before they were tightened), and there's nothing to suggest a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fail Notability. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability as per the guidelines, fails gng. Timetraveller80 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 20:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:37, 7 February 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) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Shah dynasty of Gorkha monarch[edit]

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

Whole article unsourced. Even the article title is unclear and confusing. Peter Ormond 💬 19:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a family tree for an important ruling dynasty is helpful, but the family tree on Shah dynasty#Monarchs of Shah dynasty of Gorkha (1559–1768) looks more detailed anyway. I would have voted to redirect but the title is a bit awkward, it looks like "Family tree of Shah dynasty of Gorkha" would be more accurate. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GordonGlottal (talk) 16:58, 1 February 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!} 22:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Hugues Gregoire[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:N, simply taking part in an event is not a sign of notability. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree with CapnJackSp on this one. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG Spf121188 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 31 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fistful of Vengeance[edit]

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

Fistful of Vengeance

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines and does not satisfy general notability guidelines.

Created in article space in August 2021, then moved to draft space by User:Bovineboy2008 with the edit summary: 'film's production is not particularly notable, does not meet WP:NFF yet'. Submitted for AFC review on 20 January 2022, and declined with statement: 'Please expand after the film is released to include reception information, and resubmit.' Moved to article space immediately after decline, with edit summary: 'Deserves a page, and the official title doesn't include Wu Assassins in it (for some reason)'. The title is a secondary issue, but the film only deserves a page if it satisfies general notability or film notability. The article does not speak for itself and establish why the unreleased film is notable, and the references do not establish notability. The references say that the film started production and completed production, but there is nothing notable about the film or its production.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Collider.com	Description of teaser	No	Yes		No
2	Deadline Hollywood	Announcement of plan to shoot film	No	No	Yes	No
3	Variety.com	Announcement of plan to shoot film	No	No	Yes	No
4	Maactioncinema.com	Announcement of film	No	No		No
5	Twitter	Text saying that production is complete	No	No	No	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

My recommendation is Keep because Fistful of Vengeance is streaming this February 17th and barring anything catastrophic I strongly doubt that Fistful of Vengeance won't be streaming this February 17th. And if the Fistful of Vengeance article is not made/kept the movie itself will still be refered to and/or is already refered to in the articles for Wu Assassins, Iko Uwais, Lewis Tan, Roel Reiné etc.

As for news coverage/notability (per Google News search today): Variety (as noted in the media coverage table above), ScreenRant, MovieWeb, NME, Collider (new article published Jan 21st), Geek Tyrant, Gizmodo, CBR, JoBlo, SlashFilm, Hypebeast, and several Dutch-language and Indonesian language news sites are already beginning to publish several articles covering Fistful of Vengeance since the trailer dropped yesterday (Jan 21).

I am confident that coverage will only get wider in the coming days. And after February 17 (which is only 26 days away from today) you'll have your full plot synopsis and initial wave of critical reception.

Fistful of Vengeance is eagerly anticipated because Wu Assassins has been critically acclaimed for its martial arts choreography, and media coverage anticipates that the excellent fight choreography will continue. Also both Fistful of Vengeance and Wu Assassins are part of the recent wave of Asian-American cinema which started with Crazy Rich Asians in 2018 and continues today.

And if Fistful of Vengeance's status as a yet-to-be-released movie is the issue then why do we also have articles for the upcoming Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (coming May 2022), streaming series Moon Knight (March 2022), Thor: Love and Thunder (July 2022), and so on and so forth?

--Ferdi Zebua (username: Lemi4) (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure I agree with Rob that this article is not notable. In my opinion, it is well written and extremely well sourced using a variety of reliable sources. Therefore, I feel it does pass NFF, and the article should remain 19:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeineMelon (talk • contribs)

Keep I believe the film does reach notability standards; it's just a stub as of now, but is slowly getting more info on here, especially since promo material just dropped as the release date nears. Iamnoahflores (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has the typical sourcing that unreleased films have, I am not particularly enthusiast about them, but this one is not different, and the release date is very close. I disagree with the nominator's table above, eg. I agree the Variety article carries a very limited weight, but how is it not an independent, significant or secondary source? Cavarrone 08:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I admit that draftify is probably the correct answer, it seems like process wankery to me to do so and bring it right back. We're talking about February 17, 2022 so three weeks away. I don't think this is the crystal territory that it would be if we were talking 2023. Star Mississippi 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am fully cognizant of the effect this relist has regarding certain argument put forth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deadline Hollywood and Variety are considered reliable. I also don't know why they wouldn't be considered independent here? Besides WP:NFF doesn't apply here, since photography wrapped in 2021. It wasn't the right way to publish the page but I don't think it should be deleted. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above and a few references/hits found in Screen Rant, a reliable source also I believe. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 31 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator with no votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 19:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Is Not Fresh Water[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. Article still has no citations after 15 years. Platonk (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Withdrawn by nominator: ReaderofthePack has performed a virtual miracle by finding new and obscure sources (and updated the article). Well done! I don't mind being proven wrong for a good cause. Withdrawing my nomination. Any editor can close this as Speedy Keep per WP:WDAFD. Platonk (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have to say, this was one of the more challenging searches I've had for a film! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like this was made in 1997 and it looks like it may have been played in film festivals in the last ten years or so. I've just started looking, so I'll check back in later. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's really difficult finding usable sourcing due to the junk hits and most of this being hidden behind various paywalls, especially due to the date this was released, but I've found enough to show notability. This also seems to establish that there is more sourcing out there, but it's likely not easily available on the internet due to the film's age and the likely age of the sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other sourcing that looks promising, but I can't pull up, include a likely Time Out review, this interview, and this likely review from Les Journées africaines et créoles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Google book preview gives off the impression it won an award at the 1998/7 Festival International du Film Francophone de Namur per the snippet ".. 1998 ) Zola Maseko Second : Il sangue non e acqua fresca ( Ethiopia , 1998 ) Theo Eshetu Special prizes City of Milan Prize : TGV ( Senegal , 1998 ) by Moussa Touré Air Afrique Prize : Souko - Cinematographie en Carton ( Burkina ...". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:44, 1 February 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) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Too soon. This is a potentially notable topic, but currently, it has no significant coverage in relevant sources. If there is any, those are merely speculations. In short, the topic, as of today—January 31, 2022—is not notable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom. and legislative elections may be held before time (if the house dissolve earlier). This article should be deleted for now. Nitesh003 (TALK) 19:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as the nomination and Nitesh003, it is strongly irrelevant to list/create a page about an election that will be or may not be in 2026. It is too early to create the page on basis of the presumption of the election year. Nothing is certain as mentioned on the page, hence it should be deleted. --Arunudoy ^(talk) 07:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:TOOSOON Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: too early to create article. WP:TOOSOON.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 08:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election. We expect the election to happen. We just aren't 100% sure that it will be in 2026 or not. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPGuy2824: Yeah, that exactly why I called it a 'potentially notable topic', but as the things stand, I don't expect there to be any reason to create an election page 4 years before the estimated date. It is not notable currently, and is WP:TOOSOON. – 09:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC) (-- re-signed Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete per TOOSOON. AryKun (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all the people voting "Speedy Delete", under which speedy deletion criteria do you think it should be deleted? "TOOSOON" is not a valid reason to speedy delete something. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It overlaps SNOW quite a bit, and, although an essay, seems an accepted Wikipedia way of saying this has no chance. When I put on my thinking cap I think that the term TOOSOON should probably be upgraded to guideline level with a link to the essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is that there is no fixed time limit as to when it is appropriate to create article for far-future events, especially elections. AfD is better as it helps determine the consensus that there is no notability, than speedy deleting it just because it is created 4 years ago. For instance, 2026 Kerala elections has no notability, but maybe 2026 United States Senate elections does. Just like 2032 Summer Olympics. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete TOO SOON Onmyway22 talk 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen328 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify At some stage the page will be needed and having it as draft will give people somewhere to add information as it comes to hand. Fall back position is to delete and recover in a few years. Gusfriend (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gusfriend: I agree that at some stage, this page will be needed, but till that stage (presumably at-least over a year later), I don't think it would be appropriate to keep this even in the draft space, when the content is merely a speculation. As Cullen says: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". It can be created later whenever there is notability for the topic, but should be deleted for now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair comment. I am fully happy to go with DeleteGusfriend (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Alex-h (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete because WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 07:09, 7 February 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!} 22:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind T. S.[edit]

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

The references seem to be largely his own work, but they are in Malayalam, which I dont understand. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I have no idea, since I do not speak malayalam either. However, wouldnt something like a RfC be better if you are unsure if it qualifies as an AfD? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the purpose of the article is clearly to promote the person and all the references are either primary, trivial, or both. There doesn't seem to be anything else out there about him that would work for notability either. I think a good case be made to delete this on the grounds that its blatant promotion even if there was a few good reference for it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:40, 7 February 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) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan timeline of presidents of the Philippines[edit]

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

Trivial cross-categorisation which is also an unsourced WP:NOTSTATS violation. This is simply not encyclopedic content: the number of living presidents or how long they lived after are nothing more than statistical trivia, and they are usually not included - see previous community consensus at similar discussion: 1, 2 (which had very similar content, IIRC), 3, 4, 5. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, falls under WP:NOT. ––FormalDude talk 19:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have List of presidents of the Philippines that adequately covers the same content in a much better format. Ajf773 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic of a president, and yet another over-sort of information the list-of covers. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consider adding graphical timeline to List of presidents of the Philippines as a second timeline.Gusfriend (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 00:39, 5 February 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) 08:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muscular Dystrophy Family Foundation[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article. Organisation failing WP:NORG. Google returns 129 results[10], not a single one pointing to a source independent from the organisation. Given that in this time and age, notable nonprofits tend to have significant online coverage, there is nothing to suggest that Google results are not representative. So, no choice but to delete. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked their latest form 990. Tiny organization, few activities (helped about five people: the biggest expense was getting a van for one of them), niece of president is only salaried employee. No hope of WP:NORG. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NORG. The listed sources are; (1) the subject's own website, (2) a highly patronizing "human interest" story in a local newspaper which barely mentions the subject, (3) a blatantly inspiration porn piece by Readers Digest which contains hardly any information about the subject, (4) another local paper "feel good" story with barely a mention of the subject, and (5) a directory listing. Finally, my Google search delivered nothing better. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:09, 2 February 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 WMLB. ✗plicit 05:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk Radio[edit]

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

Article about a radio show on a station (WMLB) which has since changed formats to conservative talk. There have been no new editions of this show since 2015 as its host station has ended programming. Article does not cite any external or independent sources and appears to be WP:COI. Flip Format (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WMLB, its home station. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio shows are not automatically notable just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist; the notability test is in the depth and quality of the media coverage, in sources other than itself, that can be shown to demonstrate that its significance has been externally validated (noteworthy awards, analysis of its cultural impact, etc.) by people without a vested interest in promoting it. But there are no independent sources here, nor am I seeing a reason why the show would even be quasi-notable enough to warrant retaining a redirect. But I won't fight a redirect if somebody wants to close it that way anyway, so don't deem this "no consensus" on my account: the overridingly important thing here is to make the standalone article go away by whatever means are available. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely a brokered programming show, and redirecting it to the WMLB article which now has a complete 180º in their programming format (starring the 'Godzilla of Truth') would be pointless and confusing. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WMLB: Barely found anything about the radio show. It doesn't matter if the station has reformatted or not or whether the show is station-produced or a blocktimer. Since the show was aired only on the said station, redirecting the show to the target article is the best WP:ATD to go. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 13:29, 3 February 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 Opémiska Community Hall fire. Vaguely plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Chapais fire[edit]

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

The page Opémiska Community Hall already covers the topic of this article Cologne Blue 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Cologne Blue 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered by Opémiska Community Hall fire. CarringtonMist (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Opémiska Community Hall fire which seems to be on the very same topic under a different name. Pichpich (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not needed if redundant. A redirect is also okay. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with redirect as above. Gusfriend (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This articile needs a LOT OF editing TzarN64 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is that notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 3 February 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. Star Mississippi 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Efim Jourist[edit]

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

Accordionist and bajan player, Honored Artist of the RSFSR. Compliance with the WP:NMUSIC is not noticeable--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Kolma8 (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reliable source, but not yet sufficient to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more, but also not very extensive.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one should do the job. Keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three news articles, two of which are obituaries.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if it was just the obituaries there might be an issue, but the presence of the Die Welt article on top of that clearly showcases notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with notice requesting page improvements. Gusfriend (talk) 06:50, 3 February 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 appears clear that BerriBlue is not yet notable as defined here. If someone would like a copy to work on in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 02:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BerriBlue[edit]

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

The artist has only minor exibitions, to soon, SPA JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that she is selling her silk scarves, which are definitely not "merchandise" at Wolf & Badger is, I suppose, just an extension of her art practice and totally encyclopaedic content that really belongs in an article. Or not, and it's just blatant advertising by or on behalf of an artist with no work in museum collections or any other of the notability criteria that we have for visual artists, and no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO. The creating editor created only BerriBlue article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wil57 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) - Hey guys, I came back to look at this since I got an email about it. My original intention was to create a couple of articles about street artists in Porto, but I never really got beyond this one and a draft about another artist, Hazul. I would love to return to the project and finish off a couple more articles, so it would be a shame if this one was deleted. Could you please explain what changes I should make?[reply]
I understood from the comments so far:

the scarves section should be removed because it's promo (I checked Wolf&Badger and they are no longer there, only on the artist's site and a couple of small retailers, so I agree that it should go.)
Also that the artist isn't in museums - for street art I don't know how that can work really - if you walk around Porto or Lisboa you will see that the works are everywhere, but how should I note that?
Do I need more sources?

p.s. Sorry if the format is wrong here, I'm new to this!

The problem is that the artist is not yet notable to be included in English wiki, even her works "are everywhere". Please take a look at biographies of other street artists Hense,Banksy, Keith Haring and compare exhibitions. Perhaps submitting the article to Polish wiki, where standards of inclusion are not that strict is an option worth exploring.--JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep passes WP:GNG "!vote" added at 11:21, 1 February 2022 (edit) by २ तकर पेप्सी
Question for JakubDeWisniewski. In your nomination, you write The artist has only minor exibitions, to soon, SPA. Are you saying that the creator was/is an SPA, and that creation by an SPA is grounds for deletion? -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References 2, 9, 11, 12 and 15 are to her website, and other refs are weak. David notMD (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is WP:TOOSOON for this street artist to have an encyclopedia entry. There needs to be independent significant coverage in RS to meet WP:GNG. After examining the sourcing, I find that even though there are a lot of refs listed in the article which makes it "appear" to be substantial coverage, they are not quality sources. The sourcing consists of blog posts, pieces that do not have an author byline (probably paid PR, native advertising or modified press releases) and primary sources such as her own website or user-submitted content. In other words, promotional. She does not meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST; she has had few exhibitions at non-notable galleries, but no museum shows nor collections, no reviews in notable art magazines or journals. Netherzone (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable, fail to launch. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scopecreep (talk • contribs)
Keep As the name shows street art is a genre for the people on the streets. For a street artist is much harder to get an opportunity to exhibit their work within the official network of art institutions. Suffice it to refer to Banksy’s career, and it’s clear how pointless it is to object that the artist hasn’t been featured in renowned galleries or museums yet. Under these circumstances it is a notable enough achievement that her works have been exhibited in several countries. (Poland, Ireland, Portugal). As the references prove, she gets attention form the audience.

Porto is famous for its decorated buildings. There is a long tradition of tiled and painted facades. There is a good chance for this artist to be really successful there. I would keep the article. Of course it should be corrected. It should be more neutral. I think it would be important to know her real name and other personal data. With a bit of good will one can even ask her about these pieces of information. There is no harm if the article is kept. New information is going to be added in the future. There is no harm in helping young artists. They have a calling or they have simply choosen a profession that makes living utterly difficult. Mirabella (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- " There is a good chance for this artist to be really successful there", "There is no harm in helping young artists" - these are not arguments to keep the article, otherwise Wikipedia should keep all the emerging artists. They are many outlets, where an artist can put thir bio and works, and there is no shame of not having a Wikipedia article. She may become notable in a few years, but at this moment is too soonJakubDeWisniewski (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, delete it if you will, but I mentioned arguments to keep it as well. She has already exhibited in at least 4 countries. I don't know whether you have an idea how difficult it is to get an opportunity to exhibit your works abroad... most of all as a street artist. Kolja Kramer Fine Arts exhibited street art in Vienna but it is a rare exception. The gallery was short-lived. The article was written by someone who has no other connection to the artist as wanting to write about street art in Porto. Self-promotion is excluded. On the other hand, I have to say, that even self-promotion would be a good sign. Today nothing else matters than promotion. You can sell an untouched dirty canvas it your PR is in order.

Yes, I would be careful deleting young artists. I'm not an artist but I led an online gallery for a very long time in the old days when online presence of artists and galleries was rare. You never know in advance who is going to be remembered. However it is worth keeping in mind that young Attila József was expelled from the university by Antal Horger, rector of the university, for a poem that seemed to be a bit radical. He is in my opinion by far the best poet in the history of Hungary. On the other hand nobody... literally no-one would remember Antal Horger except because of Attila József. I think today people, most of all professionals of the art market, are interested in these young artists rather than in those established ones you can read about in every art history book. Mirabella (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NARTIST. Spleodrach (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hope I'm allowed to vote to keep my own article - sorry if not! I've tried to read these comments and understand.

I removed the whole section on scarves, because I agree that can be considered promotion or merch.
I think that Mirabella's point about street artists not generally having many exhibitions is really important.
I disagree with the comment about only including street artists on the level of Banksy or Keith Harring. Those are the absolute top of the game, but there's a big difference between one of the main street artists in a large city / country and a total unknown. It's like saying we should only have musician articles about Led Zeppelin and Abba, and no one who isn't as big as that.
I think this passes WP:GNG because there are a number of secondary sources including books, magazines, auction catalogues, and large national newspapers. It does specifically say these can be in any language, so I also object to the comment that the article should go in the Polish wiki, because the standards are lower. It sounds a bit elitist about the EN wiki to be honest. :/

I'd really appreciate any help on the correct citations - I know I cited the artist's own website in a few places so they should be removed right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The auction catalogues come from "Desa aukcje młodej sztuki" a vanity event with no curatorial selection. There is no museum commissions, works in collections, residencies, critical texts about the artist. Lack of Portuguese of Polish wiki-she has not been recognized locally (red flag). Plus, your nickname sounds too similar to Willim, husband of the artist...

I undestand that you support her art, but writing an entry on Wiki to soon, is not a good idea. Tagging experienced Polish wikipedians to take a look Piotrus,Adamt — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakubDeWisniewski (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wil57 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Uff okay guys, I do disagree but getting a bit too much bother to be honest, which is a pity. Last thing I can think to do is email BerriBlue directly - I can ask about whether the auction is curated (I don't think it's a paid event). Is that any use, or am I wasting my time?[reply]
On the name - ha I see that, unfortunate!

Wil57 - I'd say it would be a waste of your time to email the artist to find out whether or not the auction was "curated". Auctions exist to sell art or other collectable things, they are not a reliable source, and info from the artist would be primary sourcing which does not contribute to notability. "Curators" in an auction house are different that museum curators. In reading some of the comments above, I just want to say, that there are folks here who are not only interested in the work of younger emerging artists, they are deeply interested in the "next generation". However articles on emerging artists still have to be vetted through the Wikipedia guidelines and policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing independent from the subject, significant coverage over a period of time, etc. This is why I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Is she promising, yes! Interesting, yes! Talented, yes! But the encyclopedia does not exist to advocate, help nor promote the next best thing; rather it is about what is in the historical record in verifiable, high-quality news, journal, and book secondary sources that are independent of the artist. It takes a while to learn all these guidelines and policies, so please understand that as much as many of us "support" young artists (I've spent a lifetime doing that thru my job) there are criteria for WP notability that multiple editors agreed upon thru consensus, over years of discussions. Wil57, please don't take this discussion personally. She sounds amazing. If it ends in deletion, which is likely, perhaps in a few years enough will have been written about her that could support an article. With best regards, Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JakubDeWisniewski’s remark about Polish Wikipedia lacks political correctness and reflects the Western belief, unfortunately still present today, that anything that is not the result of Western European or American civilization can only be inferior. I can assure you that is not the case.

Since the artist lived in Poland only until she was 13 years old, why should be an article about her in Polish Wikipedia first? Mirabella (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume or claim that the participants in this discussion believe that "anything that is not the result of Western European or American civilization can only be inferior". I don't believe that at all. Vexations (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer My remark was related to (citation): Perhaps submitting the article to Polish wiki, where standards of inclusion are not that strict is an option worth exploring.--JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC). As I'm Hungarian, I tend to take everything as an offence that is likely to hurt Polish people. We have kind of a common history. It may not have been intended the way it sounds. Still I have experienced many times in my life this covert contempt that made me sensitive. Excuse me. I think, everything has been cleared and there isn't any further problem to settle. Mirabella (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update Hey everyone, a few things - I have reached out to BerriBlue by email and asked her for help with some of the citations. She has copies of some of the physical books and newspapers cited, so I've asked for scans to verify them. Wil57 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know where I stand, I am trying to find only good sources to reference. This artist has had work featured in books on street art, national newspapers, and on TV, as well as exhibitions internationally over the course of 10 years. I'm hoping that counts for something. I'm also quite busy in real life, so could someone please let me know the deadline I have to work with here?
Thanks to Netherzone for your comments, I'll try not to take it personally (hard when you put loads of work into something, as I'm sure you all have experienced before), I do understand that certain boxes need to be ticked and that is fair. However, if my last attempt at proving notability through secondary citations doesn't work, I suggest taking a look at how street artists are measured as opposed to regular "gallery" artists. There are certain boxes that can't really be ticked, and if BerriBlue isn't considered notable, then none of the other Portuense street artists would be either, which is quite upsetting to people in Porto since it's part of our contemporary culture. (Also to me personally, since this whole thing started as a project where I would write up on the top 3 or 4 artists from Porto.)
Regarding the points made above, I don't believe that it was intended as such, but it did really come across that the EN wiki is the more correct version, and that the fact that something was missing from the "lower" PT or PL versions meant it wasn't worthy of the "higher" EN version. Again, totally don't think it was intended that way, but please take note of the potential for being read as such.

Question - Wil57, may I ask...would you happen to have a connection to the artist? The reason for this question is that I can't understand how it is that you were able to take the close-range photograph of her and upload it as your own work? I can understand with the two images of her street art that you could have encountered and photographed them in Porto. But the infobox image is obviously a posed shot. Please explain when you find a moment. Netherzone (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wil57, is a husband of an artist Willim, not only because of a brillant choice of a nickname. He has edited only her entry, he's an English native speaker, there is no Portuguese or Polish version because no one outside of the author care to write about her (if she's notable/popular in Porto someone would have written it in Portuguese), he uploaded her picture, ( +we can check the metadata here and meta from her website) and he cares too much for a stranger using here a weasel language i.e "exhibitions internationally over the course of 10 years" to make her seem more notable than she is right now. Maybe Berriblue herself is watching him writing this. Anyway, COI and most importantly TOOSOON --JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wil57 has denied COI, but has been asked on the Talk page of the article to explain who was the photographer of the three images. If Wil57, feels like COI (the second image is described as in a private collection, not street viewable). If not Wil57, then copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref #11 (Singleart), appears to be an online gallery, so this appears to be a primary source, using information provided by BerriBlue. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD I agree about the Singluart.com citation, that is used 8 times. I was debating about removing that citation entirely, because I noticed that it is a user-submitted art sales website, and definitely not a reliable source. It is non-encyclopedic. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm actually going to delete this as a WP:HOAX (ie, snow close). A quick look shows that there is nothing to substantiate any of the claims in the article. User is also going to get a WP:NOTHERE block. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick and Ellis: The Movie[edit]

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

Not notable. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 12:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Characters" are actually from the videogame Left 4 Dead 2, and the 'comedy' is of the low-effort 'let's make these videogame characters say naughty words' type of 'hilarity' with a low viewcount to boot (and no, Disney isn't distributing this through 20th or whatever it's called this week). Doesn't merit an article here. Nate • (chatter) 05:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GARAGE, as this film is apparently a fan film using characters from other media (as noted in an opinion by Nate above) and isn't too notable. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 15:49, 1 February 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. A quick look at the page shows some clear WP:HOAX material, such as the claims that it's getting released through major production companies. Snow closing this as a hoax. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Justice: Eye of the Tiger[edit]

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

Not notable. Couldn't find anything in a google search. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 12:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GARAGE. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to reasons already stated above and the fact that something existing in this world doesn't always need to have a Wikipedia page (also Universal isn't making this film). FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 15:58, 1 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Merner[edit]

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

An article has been created about the subject of this article across multiple wikis by Frryan404; the simplewiki article was deleted a short while ago for non-notability. I ran a search for sources, and turned up empty-handed; I only saw a few mentions. I admittedly could not check for Swedish-language sources; but from what I can see, it seems that the subject is a case of WP:BLP1E and thus fails WP:BIO. Also, the creator attempted to canvass others, according to the simplewiki discussion, suggesting there may be a COI involved. Java Hurricane 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 11:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 11:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage needed to establish notability. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:55, 1 February 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wgullyn (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC) (I corrected the result to reflect that the nominator withdrew their nomination, this wasn't a "Keep" decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Sus al-Aksa[edit]

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

Mooonswimmer 10:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Was testing out Twinkle for the first time, accidentally created the AfD. A PROD seems to be more suitable. Mooonswimmer 10:54, 31 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DanCherek (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dataclysm[edit]

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

It is not immediately evident that this book has had much lasting impact on the world (beyond the odd review following its release) that might make it worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Between the lack of sourcing, the clear absence of editors interested in taking this further and the rigors of WP:NOTNEWS, it does not really seem worth retaining this material. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Page issues notwithstanding, @Cunard found some compelling WP and WSJ pieces. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ellenberg, Jordan (2014-09-11). "Book review: 'Dataclysm,' a look at human behavior, by Christian Rudder". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The book review notes: "I had a few other quibbles like that. But the reason I had quibbles is that Rudder’s book offers you something to quibble with. Most data-hyping books are vapor and slogans. This one has the real stuff: actual data and actual analysis taking place on the page."
2. Adams, Jane Stewart (2014-10-03). "Book Review: 'Dataclysm' by Christian Rudder". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The book review notes: "“Dataclysm” may make an excellent case for the necessity of user data in social-science research, but it does little to justify experimentation on users. Interestingly, many questions addressed in the book didn’t require such experimentation to answer. The answers were already in the data; for better or worse, it was just a matter of looking."
3. Harris, Michael (2014-09-19). "Dataclysm: What OkCupid's Christian Rudder knows about me, you and everyone we know". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The book review notes: "Rudder is sensitive to these pitfalls, even though he could have easily become another tech evangelist. His book delivers both insider access and a savvy critique of the very machinery he is employed by. Since he's been in the data mines and has risen above them, Rudder becomes a singular and trustworthy guide."
4. Danielson, Jim (2015-04-15). "Review: 'Dataclysm' by Christian Rudder". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The book review notes: "The mammoth scope of Rudder’s work is impressive. It is most interesting to place yourself in the conclusions that the numbers show you. It is also at times a little frightening."
5. Arellano, Ruta. "Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking)". San Francisco Book Review. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The book review notes, "It’s only fair to note that Dataclysm requires an attentive reader who has a commitment to the subject matter. The payoff is worth the effort."
6. Osberg, Molly (2014-09-11). "The OKCupid data blog is back, in book form. The dating site founder's new book is a love letter to big data". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The book review notes: "Given the amount of information being gathered about us, we need something that takes the ethical questions of 2014 more seriously, or at least helps us better understand the industries from which these numbers come — not a book filled with data about data collection heaped upon an existing mountain of data, all of it telling us what we sort of already knew."
7. "Fast Company recommends: Dataclysm". Fast Company. No. 188. September 2014.
  This is a 136-word book review. The book review notes: "Christian Rudder's Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking) is a smart and funny meander through information that the OkCupid cofounder has collected from his dating site, as well as from Twitter, Facebook, Craigslist, and other places where people express their innermost thoughts and desires."
8. Ingraham, Janet (2014-09-01). "Rudder, Christian. Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking)". Library Journal. Vol. 139, no. 14. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Gale.
  This is a 216-word book review. The book review notes: "Rudder, cofounder of dating site OKCupid, offers an irreverent, thought-provoking popularization of data science, specifically online user data and what it tells us about attraction, division, and identity."
9. "Rudder, Christian: Dataclysm". Kirkus Reviews. 2014-08-15. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Gale.
  This is a 328-word book review. The book review notes: "Demographers, entrepreneurs, students of history and sociology, and ordinary citizens alike will find plenty of provocations and, yes, much data in Rudder's well-argued, revealing pages."
10. Farris, Dale (2014-11-15). "Rudder, Christian. Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking)". Library Journal. Vol. 139, no. 19. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Gale.
  This is a 228-word book review. The book review notes: "Rudder (cofounder and president, OKCupid.com) here presents an extensive analysis of the online personal data collected by his site".
11. Moskowitz, Clara (2014-07-15). "Book Review: Dataclysm". Scientific American. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0814-78d. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  This a four-sentence book review. The book review notes: "OkCupid co-founder Rudder drills down into that last category via charts, graphs and intriguing analyses of human behavior gleaned from the wealth of social data now available."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dataclysm to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:23, 31 January 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) 04:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Joshi (cricketer)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable cricketer. There is no trace on Cricinfo or CricketArchive for this cricketer, the latter containing the profiles of the most minor of players. The player fails WP:NCRIC as Minor League Cricket does meet the notability inclusion guideline for players (see WP:OFFCRIC), and the same is true for supposed under-19 players. Going back to there being no Cricinfo or CricketArchive profiles, originally the infobox claimed the player has played 7 Twenty20 matches, which is simply untrue; this has now been changed but the lead claims he has played List A cricket, again untrue; if these claims were true, the player would have a CI and CA profile. StickyWicket (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth players are not notable for youth player actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and other commenters. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are many misinformation in the article with none of the informations matching the sites sourced. Human (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and hasn't played in a notable enough match either. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No record of this cricketer on CI or CA although there are multiple articles mentioning him 1 2 WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per lacking reliable sourcing of content in sufficient amount to support notability. IMHO, false information not supported by the cited sources indicates a WP:HOAX eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G3. Came here by way of RfPP. Just passing through, so haven't the time to sift it out. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:38, 5 February 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 Bhutan Twenty20 International cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjung Dorji[edit]

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

This cricketer fails the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines. He has does not play in a top-level league (see here) and his one T20I international also fails NCRIC as they have not appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women) or Global Qualifier (men or women). Fails wider GNG too as coverage is very much routine. StickyWicket (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bhutan Twenty20 International cricketers Fails updated cricket guidelines as nom states, can't see anything to suggest a GNG pass either. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bhutan Twenty20 International cricketers. Human (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bhutan Twenty20 International cricketers as the best ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 6 February 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) 04:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Lenihan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Needles and Pins is okay as one semi-major credit, but where are the others? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources showing a pass of GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't agree more with what's already been stated. Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:56, 4 February 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!} 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Hamilton[edit]

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

Being a member of the National Mediation Board is not enough for WP:BIO. I see little more than notices about her appointment. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More NMB members with weak qualifications to come if this pans out: Kyle Fortson, Linda Puchala, Ernest W. DuBester. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this low level of an administrative position does not give default notability, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question and a comment. First, the question. A position on the National Mediation Board has to be approved by the US Senate. Is there a discussion buried in the depths of Wikipedia as to how that may fit into notability? I read through the notability (politics) guideline[11], but it did not directly address my question. My second item is a comment. The other people mentioned for future deletion discussions have served on this board for extended periods of time, and are more likely to meet WP:GNG than Hamilton, the newest member of this board. They should be evaluated on their own for notability (though pending the answer to my question about senate-approved positions), and not based on the outcome of this discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all ambassadors have to be approved by the senate, and we do not consider them default notable. On a worldwide scale, I imagine there are some countries that have insanly long lists of people who have to go through some process similar to senatorial approval, so I do not think it would make sense to say all administrative posts approvaed by the senate are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't nominated the others yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 1 February 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 Modern pentathlon at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's. Pretty clear consensus to take the WP:ATD route. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Denman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Worth noting - a nomination (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. --2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, finished #6 individual and team was #4 at the 1952 Olympics [12] which does not meet WP:NOLYMPIC. The only other info I could find about him is that he was an Army Lieutenant and 1952 was the last all-military pentathlon team the US sent [13] so I can't see how he meets WP:GNG either. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have decided that non-medaling Olympians do not get default inclusion. The other sourcing is not enough to show a passing of GNG, and so we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched Newspapers.com expecting to find SIGCOV but found the coverage to be very thin. Nothing that would satisfy GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my searches were no more fruitful than those above. Denman existed, but nothing to approach GNG. Star Mississippi 22:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Denman had the best result of the three US competitors. For some reason, the other two are not nominated for deletion. Deb (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Non sequitur WP:OSE. Unfortunately we have tens of thousands of these mass-productions without sigcov that may need to go, and they are among them. Reywas92^Talk 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non sequitur. Denman is the most successful of the three and there is no consensus that all stubs without sigcov have to be removed in any set period. Deb (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're saying that an article that fails both GNG and the relevant SNG should be kept because... there are similar articles that are even less notable but have not been nominated first? That's a textbook example of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lennart97 (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. In the future, I would encourage editors to simply be bold and redirect pages like this where a clear target exists rather than create a bunch of AfDs. Smartyllama (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama - Previous efforts at cleaning up stubs using redirection have seen the redirections simply reverted by the creator. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Was that before or after the changes to NOLY meant these people failed the SNG in additon to any GNG failure? I redirected a few articles from the same events as these AfDs last week for individuals where there was a clear target to redirect to (either the event, or the country if they competed in more than one event but only at one Olympics) and have not been reverted. I can understand why people would have reverted the BOLD redirects when NOLY still said they were notable though. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: - Yes, they are definitely still doing it. FOARP (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I get what you're saying, but that looks like a bad redirect and a good revert to me. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? We literally have something in SPORTSCRIT saying you shouldn’t base notability solely on Sports-reference.com, and Olympedia is just an amateur-maintained copy of Sports-reference.com. But if you think that should be kept, can you now see why AFD tends to be the better way to go for these, despite the time taken? FOARP (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth doing a quick skim of the cited sources and other language wikis before redirecting? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's. Target requires expansion from the raw results list we have presently that fails WP:NOT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's: per WP:NOPAGE. ––FormalDude talk 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. AryKun (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Is there anything stopping people from speedy redirecting these in future, if there's definitely no coverage? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: No. There's also nothing stopping people from reverting if they think the article is notable, at which point AfD becomes the proper venue. FOARP mentioned one case where such an edit was reverted, but there have also been several edits that were not so be bold and do so if you want, provided you've done a WP:BEFORE of course, and if you get reverted, then you can take it to AfD if you still feel it appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugnuts is of course one of the people who has reverted these attempts to create redirects. I feel this shows that he is being disingenous in arguing for redirects. His actions before have amounted to throwing a tantrum that people are not agreeing with him that every person who has ever competed in the Olympics is notable. I think this should cause people to pause in considering advocating his unending fighing for redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have BOLD-ly redirected about a dozen of Lugnuts' Olympian articles and he has not reverted a single one. In any case, Lugnuts' conduct is irrelevant to whether this article should be redirected or not. Smartyllama (talk) 21:49, 3 February 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethecon Foundation[edit]

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

This organization is not notable Wikipedia:Notability. All the references cited with regard to the organization itself are blogs, many of which are broken links. Several of the references don't even link to pages resembling the reference title (e.g. reference 1, which links to a book called "What Then, Must We Do?" while the reference itself is entitled "What do Hugo Chavez, Vandana Shiva, and Diane Wilson Have In Common?"). In addition, this page violates the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy. It accuses an individual person of "irresponsible marketing of baby-food, genetic engineering and the monopolizing of water.", with nothing but a link to Ethecon's blog as the reference, violating WP:BLPSPS. I suggest it be deleted. Kim.mason (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Broken links and incorrect reference titles are not grounds to delete an article (Please read Wikipedia:Link rot). Have you attempted to update the links or archive them, or fix other formatting issues? Also the issue of what Ethecon hands out its 'awards' for has already been discussed on the talk page. I believe a consensus was reached that it is permissible to say why they decided to give a negative award, provided it is made clear that the reasoning is solely the opinion of the foundation. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've already fixed reference 1 - the original article was simply dead and redirecting elsewhere. I've linked to an archived version of the original article instead. In the future I suggest checking whether issues than concern you can be easily resolved before nominating an article for deletion. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And now I've fixed all the references. There are no dead references, there are no references that redirect anywhere else, and many references of questionable reliability have been removed. It appears the article's main issues was actually overciting. Many recipients of awards had two or three references when they only needed one, and these were typically the sources that were the most questionable. Sure, some of the remaining sources may not be reliable (take them to WP:RSN if you like), but other sources used in the article to back up claims include The Guardian, AlterNet, Die Tageszeitung, Der Freitag, Neues Deutschland, Junge Welt and Chelsea Green Publishing. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY. ––FormalDude talk 15:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gusfriend (talk) 10:51, 2 February 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) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bayou St. John (novel)[edit]

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

I don't think this is a notable book - Google is just bringing up sales sites and blogs, and there's nothing on JSTOR, EBSCO, Gale, or ProQuest. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Hog Farm _Talk 05:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did searches for: "Bayou St. John" and the book's author "Arthur Pindle". I could not find coverage in any reliable sources about the book in my searches for sources. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even an inclusionsist like me knows a book with zero Amazon and Goodreads ratings is not going to yield any hidden sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find sourcing to establish notability as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is coverage, it's hidden very well. As things stand, this fails NBOOK/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:05, 5 February 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) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Rumble[edit]

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

Noting that WP:NTV is an essay. I could not find significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find somewhere to merge it. Gusfriend (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this TV series. If someone finds some, I will reconsidered my vote. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 3 February 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. Consensus is, this is more than a definition Star Mississippi 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wingnut (politics)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:DICDEF. This was a neologism with no enduring notability. It saw a brief period of usage in the early 2000s. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Absent some manner of historical or cultural context, I think this is a subject for Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary redirect per WP:NOTDICT. (t · c) buidhe 08:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has been, and is being, expanded, and is far from a DICDEF now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also rather absurd to say that "wingnut" has "no enduring notability", considering that Safire first wrote about in in 2004, and economist Paul Krugman used it in his NYT column as recently as 2015 [14] (in the form of "wingnut welfare"), and it was used in a WaPo column in 2018 [15]. Cites can be found up to 2021 [16] (not suitable as a WP ref, but it's still a usage). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs now from 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020 and 2021 - so much for not having legs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is still a dictionary definition; it just has some more citations of definitions now than it used to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more usage examples have been added to the article, but my recommendation remains the same. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSER: The above editor brought a quickly closed complaint abut me to AN/I, [17] in which he issued a WP:PA against me, "BeyondMyKen is on one of his OCD kicks again:" had edits to an article I've heavily contributed to reverted by an admin and another editor for being WP:POINTy, [18], [19] went to an editor I'm in a content dispute with on this very article to offer themselves as an "ally", [20]and has been warned by two admins on their talk page for their battleground behavior in regard to me. [21], [22] All this in the last 4 days.
I don't believe that their !vote here can be taken at face value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSER: same !vote as I would have made regardless. Skyerise (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been significant coverage and analysis of the term, not just use of the term, by writers like Safire (twice), Herszenhorn and Avlon. The term is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cullen328: you should know that notability does not guarantee a standalone article. We have WP:NOT#DICT for a reason, and it is a policy. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is longer and more in-depth than would be found in any dictionary, print or online, including Wikimedia's. It is, in fact, an encyclopedia article, and not a dictionary definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - AlexEng, I agree with Beyond My Ken. This encyclopedia article is currently far more comprehensive than a dictionary definition, and discusses the concept and not just the word, in detail. I do not know how much you know about William Safire but I followed his career for nearly four decades. I disliked him initially as a Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew speechwriter, but he redeemed himself with 30 years of coverage of the English language for the New York Times. Safire did not write dictionary definitions. He examined and analyzed and documented the history and connotations words in far more depth than any dictionary, even the Oxford English Dictionary (which I own a print copy of), would ever do. The policy you quote does not rule out articles about terms but rather articles that consist only of dictionary definitions without encyclopedic content, and the policy specifically mentions Truthiness as a contrary example. There is ample precedent for keeping this article. We have Category:Pejorative terms for people which has 257 articles, and there are subcategories such as Category:Class-related slurs with 54 articles and Category:Ethnic and religious slurs with 151 articles. In this case, an entire book called Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America has been published in 2010, which is referenced in the article. What is the basis for deleting this article about a notable pejorative when we have hundreds of other articles about notable pejoratives? Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Wiktionary redirect - Haven't dug into this too deeply, but it seems like "Wingnut" is a classic neologism that's mainly used pejoratively in Op-eds. It's not clear to me that the term has gained any direct coverage in mainstream RS's. NickCT (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the term is pejorative, it's hardly surprising that its primary usage is in op-eds and opinion columns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But op-eds are less reliable sources, right? And it seems we're relying on them to establish notability in this case. NickCT (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not when the ref is offered not for the truth of the statements made, but for the existence of the usages shown in them. It's very much like the standards used in (American) courts. And the Safire is the opinion of a verified expert - he's not using the terms, he's explaining the usage of the terms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is sorta challenging to understand. I agree the word "exists" and is used, but that doesn't mean it's a notable topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Lots of words and neologisms exist but aren't notable subjects.

The Safire piece doesn't give the term direct coverage. Notable topics receive direct, detailed and significant coverage in reliable sources. Safire's piece may be RS, but it's not direct, detailed, or, by itself, significant. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced-informative article.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to point out the changes that have been made to the article since it was AfD'd. [23] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT#DICDEF. While it did receive a WP:REFBOMB recently, if you take a look at those refs they are largely by the same few writers. Which is a very clear indication that the term is not wide spread, or as mentioned above, does not have legs. It also relies way to much on actual dictionaries, which is a big red flag. It is spread thin to give the impression of notability, which this clearly lacks. In fact it just looks like a NPOV coatrack at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the addition of 12K worth of textual material was in no way a "REFBOMB". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The nominator wanted "some manner of historical cultural context". How about: https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-brief-history-of-wingnuts-in-america-from-george-washington-to-woodstock — and in that context, WP:DICDEF is irrelevant to this topic. The article could be improved, but the notability of the topic is obvious, and the recent citations added should alleviate concerns about whether this article is deletable. Incompleteness is not a valid reason to delete, and this article is not incomplete, it goes into far more depth than any dictionary ever would. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a highly relevant quote from DICDEF: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Historical relevance aside, DICDEF doesn't matter if the WP:WORDISSUBJECT. That Wing Nut (Safire, 2004) and Wingnuts: Extremism in the Age of Obama (Avlon, 2014) both address the topic in so-titled works is evidence of notability for me. I would like to see more sources, and without checking the coverage of the word itself in the texts I won't be more emphatic than a weak keep, but I see no reason to delete at this point. — HTGS (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need of deleting the article; moreover Improvement is needed who has expertise in this field should be notified. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - better than a WP:DICDEF, this article discusses the origin of the neologism and its use in political writing and cultural impact. It may not be in prominent use any more but notability is not temporary. Other issues can be dealt with through regular editorial processes; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NTEMP, While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. NTEMP is not a rational for keeping or deleting. The issues are its reliance on primary sources (like dictionaries), the same authors over and over(lack of wide spread coverage), and outside that small group of authors only usage or passing mention(not direct coverage). Which is the reason for this AFD and not something covered by WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. PackMecEng (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has clearly been expanded well beyond a mere dictionary definition.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this is beyond a dictionary defitition now. If it was used several years ago, notability does not expire. The article is not refbombed; refbombing is when several (questionable-quality) references are stacked onto a small amount of text, such as this: [1][2][3][4][5][6] There might still be some concerns about primary vs secondary sources in this article, but not quite enough to warrant deletion. Geschichte (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: That is incorrect. WP:REFBOMB it is getting a bunch of sources to try and establish notability of a topic even if those sources are not great. Basically trying to puff up its notability. The number of sources to the same author or two and all the links to primary sources is an example of that. Per refbomb A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. It is in reguards to the article as a whole rather than a specific small amount of text or sentence. PackMecEng (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is not a dictionary definition, it's an article on the usage of a political term. I think there is remove for improvement but that is true for the majority of articles on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: What should be removed for improvement? PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 8 February 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 05:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Kamanda[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. ––FormalDude talk 04:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only source I found that could possibly contribute to notability was this, and even that source has very questionable reliability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:45, 1 February 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 Wrestling at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's freestyle welterweight. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Mellinger[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage available, sources on the page and any I can find are autogenerated pages with basic information listed or passing mentions, no significant coverage or indication of notability. Garnarblarnar (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect IF nothing can be found on this chap to Wrestling at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's freestyle welterweight, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was not a medaler, so does not meet Olympics notability. The reality of the 1904 games is that they were not really a true Olympics, more an adjunct to the St. Louis World's Fair, and were almost completely an American competition. Participation in them does not really even come close to rising to the level of notability. There is no good reason to redirect, it is not clear that this person was even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He finished behind at least 4 other Americans after losing his first and only match. Doesn't meet any notability criteria. However, he did compete so a redirect to the article on the event seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others above as a valid alternative to deletion to where information can be found. In the future, editors can simply be bold and redirect these clearly non-notable articles once they have done a thorough WP:BEFORE and only start an AfD if they get reverted. Would save all of us a lot of time. Smartyllama (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried that with an article, and Lugnuts reverted it. So no, that is not a valid plan. Having a huge number of redirects that go to articles that say nothing of any substance about the person is not a good plan at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I've tried it with about 12 and he hasn't reverted a single one. Perhaps that shows the one you picked to redirect was a bad example, perhaps not. That's for AfD to decide at this point if you want to take it there. But it would be less of a burden on the community to just be bold and redirect it, then discuss if you're reverted rather than start a bunch of AfDs which are invariably going to end with the same result. Smartyllama (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I normally prod, and have no objection if a redirect is implemented, but in this case a discussion was desired. BilledMammal (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wrestling at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's freestyle welterweight, per User:Lugnuts, others, and the WP:ATD. The ATD is an important WP policy. gidonb (talk) 23:38, 3 February 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIRS. Info directly copied from rail site. No independent verification. Notabilty and ref tag added for new article. scope_creep^Talk 01:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid rationale. A railway station is not an organisation or company and thus WP:NORG (of which WP:SIRS is part of) doesn't apply. I believe the official China Railway website is 12306.cn, the comment that there is "no independent verification" is false - neither of the sources appear to be owned by China Railway. Regarding notability of railway stations, there is longstanding community consensus that all railway stations are notable and for good reason - it saves us from wasting time arguing over these articles and it allows users to follow the line using the "adjacent stations" template at the bottom of the article. Removing this article would make navigation harder, making Wikipedia worse for our readers. NemesisAT (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added an addtional source. NemesisAT (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're may be consensus on the Wikipedia that railways and railway stations are notable. Of course they are notable, but like every article on Wikipedia, they must be referenced. Simply copying information from a database generated page isn't acceptable. Where is the encyclopeadic value. Lastly, I think railway stations are organisationally based. Where does the money come from when they are repaired? They are covered by WP:NCORP. This article was sent to draft to be fixed. It wasn't. I understand it is quite hard to find information on static structures. But this is effectly a reflection of what is found on the database generated page. A notabilty tag was placed by an editor in good standing, on the new article in mainspace, which indicates there is real problem here. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an additional citation. I'll add some details of the service pattern shortly. Nempnet (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new list article for stations on the rail line A reevaluation of the pseudo-policy by which "railway stations are generally presumed notable" is in order. NemesisAT has been making a large number of these train station stubs, many of which would fail GNG if weighed against that metric. They are often tagged for notability or insufficient references by new page patrollers, and/or draftified, but all draftifications are promptly undone by NemesisAT without any improvements made. These are very small stubs - before this AfD, the entire text of the article was:
"Xinfeng railway station (Chinese: 信丰站) is a railway station in Xinfeng County, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.[1] It is an intermediate stop on the Beijing–Kowloon railway.

History

The station opened in 1996.[2]"

Considering we recently had a giant thread at ANI over an editor mass-creating poorly referenced stubs, I think it's fair to say the community does not support mass creation of poorly referenced stubs sourced mostly to databases. Take a look at the next station down the line from this one (not created by NemesisAT), which is in even worse condition: Longnan railway station (Jiangxi) is sourced only to a timetable. My two cents is that if the station articles are this barebones, they should be contained within a list article for each line, with only stations that have enough sources to justify a standalone article kept as individual articles (for instance, Beijing West railway station is clearly notable). There is not any actual policy stating all train stations are inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some service details added Nempnet (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCORP is the wrong guideline to apply here, it is WP:NBUILDING, which says that Artificial features related to infrastructure only require GNG (and as WP:5P notes we are sort of a gazetteer, I use a very lax definition of GNG here). And this very lax interpretation can be met as follows (yes, these are poor sources, but do technically check all the boxes there being significant coverage of the station by multiple reliable independent (see WP:XINHUA) sources):

"点赞！信丰火车站客运值班人的春节坚守......_康敏". 信丰县广电新闻中心 (Xinfeng County Radio and Television News Center). Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Sohu. | Note - this is an excerpt of a short TV news segment about the station, full segment is in embedded video.
"信丰火车站倾情服务旅客". Guangming Daily. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Sohu.

While I would also support Trainsandotherthings suggest of a list & re-evaluating the consensus applied at AfD to presume notability (there was an RfC on this a few years ago, got no consensus due to disagreement of what counts as a "train station", maybe a more focused definition can get consensus), I don't believe this AfD is a good place to do this, as it requires more depth (ex. which articles should be listified, if a list would be appropriate (if vast majority of articles have enough info to write an article or would be awkward to listify because they are transfer stations, then I would just make articles for all railway stations instead)). Probably best to start an RfC in WP:TRAINS then work from there. Jumpytoo Talk 18:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's literally impossible for such an infrastructure project to be built without extensive government reports on the budgets, planning, building and operating. It's highly doubtful that such a topic in the US or UK would even be considered for Afd. "No independent verification"? Of what, its existence? Oakshade (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: That is a reasonable argument. The Afd rationale isn't that its not notable, it was the fact that it doesn't verify that its notable. Where is that information, the extensive government reports. Instead, is information copied directly from railway timetables, and database generated pages. What is the point of that exactly? Does that do a disservice to Wikipedia? What is the point of duplicating content between here and the source site? scope_creep^Talk 10:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been around for twenty years. Other websites frequently dissappear, making the information inaccesible. Many times when creating an article I've used sources from Chinese Wikipedia, and they have gone offline. NemesisAT (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have always held all railway stations to be notable. The deletion rationale is invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:DINC -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree that a general purpose railway stations are notable things ruling (at least when it is a major intercity railway) would be useful.Gusfriend (talk) 07:23, 5 February 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 Culver's. Whatever section. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CurderBurger[edit]

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

Completely mediocre subject. References are PR. Fails WP:NCORP. No historical or encyclopaedic value. scope_creep^Talk 00:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable at all. 747pilot (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Culvers#Venture into casual dining, where the delicacy (which I did try and liked, so WP:COI 😂) is mentioned appropriately, along with WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf: I've moved the sentence on the CurderBurger to Culver's#Menu, as it was not a part of their venture into casual dining. ––FormalDude talk 04:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I thought that made more sense. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 04:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Culver's#Menu: not notable for a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. ––FormalDude talk 04:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Culver's#Menu. This is not notable enough for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 3 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine E. Heald[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 00:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources are either a passing mention, or include a quote by Heald with a one-sentence passing mention. The ones with more meat are not independent. I couldn't find further high-quality sourcing. Femke (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This looks good and in-depth, but not enough if we can't find a few more like this. Caphadouk (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a PR website with a PR article. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. She fails to do enough to pass WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:54, 4 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Jewish Values[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of Notability after over a decade. In 2007 it's notability was questioned in the previous AfD but kept because of editor commitment to improvement and sourcing (which seems not to have happened).

In 2019 a GNG tag was placed on the page, but no sourcing has been added. A cursory search does not arrive at coverage in secondary sources, and the tone of the entire article expresses self-written bias. -Markeer 00:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find anything to establish notability either. It's been awhile, so it's probably not there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gnews turns up one hit, an interview with a guy that works there in the Jerusalem Post in 2015. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you're relying on sources from the wayback machine that's a sign. It fails WP:GNG by some margin. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 4 February 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.