< May 04	May 06 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benched (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Deprodded with addition of sources, but they're just interviews with the lead actor and not independent, third party coverage. I could find no reviews, nor anything that wasn't some variant of "John C. McGinley to star in Benched". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd forgotten to add this review from the Los Angeles Times. A review in such a major paper, combined with the other sources, establishes notability IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that "Fan Fest", "Red Carpet Crash", etc. are reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are 2 critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews provided are sufficient to prove that the film is notable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Napier shootings[edit]

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

This event does not appear to have any lasting significance. A person who was going to be searched by police for drugs, opened fire and killed a policeman. After a siege, he killed himself. There was a coronial inquest, as is standard but a search didn't reveal any evidence of attempts to change laws, or any political impact, or community protests. There is basically no coverage more than a year after the killing apart from routine reporting on the coronial inquest. While it was in the news in the immediate aftermath of the event, it ended up having no impact and WP:NOTNEWS Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 01:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The killing of a police officer is a very rare event in New Zealand, with only one other officer killed since this (not counting one killed in an earthquake). See List of New Zealand police officers killed in the line of duty. A TV movie was made about the event in 2012 (see the external links section of the article), and Radio New Zealand made a documentary in 2019.-gadfium 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a movie and a documentary about the event, and one person involved was made New Zealander of the year. To claim no "lasting significance" thus appears wrong. Schwede 66 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge Into List of New Zealand police officers killed in the line of duty. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is currently on the main page, this satisfies Criterion #6 for a Speedy Keep. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, this is currently on the main page. ansh.666 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC) struck and reopened since it's rotated off the MP again, pinging Rockstone35[reply]
Keep, per gadfium and Schwede. There has been coverage of this event long after it happened. ansh.666 19:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above, rare event in New Zealand that is well covered for WP:GNG, been made into a TV movie and a documentary, Person in it was named New Zealander of the Year and bravery awards were given for the event.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 03:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Taking a look at WP:EVENTCRIT, an event is very likely to be notable if it has widespread (national or international) impact and was covered widely. It is undeniable from the source list alone that this event was widely covered in New Zealand and hence there is [coverage]. As has been noted, this particular kind of crime is rare in NZ and so has a lasting effect. In summary I consider this criminal act has attracted significant media coverage conferring notability, and so it's article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This still comes up on various anniversaries and is mentioned (recently because it was one of the few times a Light Armoured Vehicle was used in New Zealand). I can find links for this, but it seems like it is snowing anyway. There are not many police shootings (at least not then) in New Zealand so when they happen they tend to have lasting effects. Aircorn (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it continues to be topical in the media. NealeWellington (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event itself it notable as it dominated national news for a number of days during and after. Article name might need changing perhaps, but that's about it. Ajf773 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For an event that nom alleges "does not appear to have any lasting significance", this has had a TV movie made 6 years after the event. That looks like lasting significance to me. Not to mention it unquestionably meets the general notability guideline as well, with 26 cites in the article, many of which are high quality significant coverage Jacona (talk) 12:25, 11 May 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 The Try Guys. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without A Recipe[edit]

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

Article about a web series, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for web content. Of the 20 footnotes being used to support this article, 19 of them are literally just the show's own episodes metaverifying themselves on YouTube -- which is primary sourcing that does not constitute support for notability -- and while there is one citation to a legitimate WP:GNG-worthy media outlet, it's not so much about this web series itself as about a forthcoming spinoff that was just announced by a real television network a couple of weeks ago but has not premiered yet, and thus isn't substantively enough about the web series to get the web series over the bar all by itself separately from the potential notability of the future television show.
And even on a Google News search for better sources, I'm not finding solid ones that would make a big difference -- I'm finding weaksauce sources like Screen Rant and Showbiz Cheat Sheet and Tubefilter and university student media, not real GNG-worthy coverage in properly reliable or GNG-worthy newspapers or magazines.
Once the television spinoff has debuted, there's a good (but not inevitable) prospect that it will clear WP:TVSHOW, and thus this could be addressed as part of the history of that in a shared article -- but this doesn't have the sourcing needed to merit a standalone article as a separate topic from the upcoming Food Network show. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Try Guys. Once the TV spinoff has actually come about, the situation may change. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Try Guys. NavjotSR (talk) 15:52, 9 May 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 23:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gruhalakshmi Swarnakankanam[edit]

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

While language is no doubt an issue, the Telugu article isn't any better sourced nor does Google translate provide an assertion of notability. Bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 18:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, and India. Star Mississippi 18:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though there are several people that have received this award, I am not able to find source that establish this award to be notable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:04, 12 May 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!} 05:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Elwood[edit]

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

Every source is WP:PRIMARY except for one article on Cram. His only other TV role, Strip Poker, is currently at prod due to a lack of sources. None of his other television roles is anything other than a single guest appearance. Everything else cited is just random YouTube videos. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One hit in Entertainment Weekly with a quote for the LA Podcast Festival and one in what looks like a Vegas Foodie blog/column thing. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 5 May 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. Could be recreated as a Draft should independent sources ever emerge on this organization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Ren[edit]

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

Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources and notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:58, 28 April 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 April 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 May 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. with no one arguing for delete, the keep/merge discussion can continue without a 3rd relist of this discussion. Star Mississippi 03:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pear Deck[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf on an IP upon request due to concerns with notability. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Technology. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Some of the sources cited in this article are WP:ROUTINE (and others not WP:RS) but, by my count, there are just enough references like this [2] to get it past the notability threshold. The separate question of it potentially being promotional should be handled through a rewrite instead of deletion. Chetsford (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Since the company merged with GoGuardian, and GoGuardian's article is not very long, I don't see why it could not be merged and covered in a section there. Although the article is supported by references and is factual and could be kept, its long-run encyclopedic importance is not clear; i think it is better merged into that other. If the name/brand "Pear Deck" will continue to be used then that should be used prominently in that article. --Doncram (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~leaning keep~~ - Newspapers.com came up with a lot of stuff, I haven't evaluated it too closely yet, hopefully will have time to come back. Here are some clips [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]...It looks likely this is WP:SIGCOV. If it's not closed too quickly, I'll have time to look at this, maybe someone else can evaluate these sources in the meantime. Jacona (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No way I'm looking at this today, so I'm striking my vote for now. Jacona (talk) 14:23, 11 May 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 The Planet's Funniest Animals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest Pets & People[edit]

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

Absolutely zero sourcing found. Unreferenced since forever. Was previously deleted via PROD and re-created so cannot be prodded again. (Twinkle really needs a methodology to capture things like that.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Planet's Funniest Animals Clear serial-number filing case; different title, same pool of videos, just with a different title and a guy in a booth instead of in front of the camera introducing them. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clearly A7 EvergreenFir (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JTGOnTheTrack[edit]

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

A7 removed by IP editor (and likely sock). Plainly non-notable high school student. agtx 23:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. agtx 23:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus Effect[edit]

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

Current sources are all passing mentions, the show itself, or about the "Nostradamus effect" as a concept and have nothing to do with the show whatsoever. A blogspot blog critical of the show is also linked, violating WP:SELFPUB. Hits on ProQuest and Newspapers.com were only passing mentions in fluff pieces critical of the History Channel, or TV Guide listings. Zero reliable sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the reason for the nomination. I do hope we can find sources to preserve it, just to have an easy way for internet users to know this series is a bunch of bunkum. When I was young somehow I stumbled across The Man Who Saw Tomorrow on cable TV and it transfixed me, there was no wikipedia to tell me it was a bunch of horseshit, and I really sorta believed that stuff for a number of years. Indeed, even now I believe Nostradamus predicted that if this article is deleted, the same thing will happen to more impressionable young minds. Century 6, quatrain 8 clearly says "Those who were in the realm for knowledge (internet searchers), Will become impoverished at the change of King (the deletion), Some exiled without support (no citations), having no gold (no sources that pass GNG), The lettered and letters will not be at a high premium (the article and its readers will not be valued)." Don't let this prediction become true!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While not high art or something that would have produced fervent discussion at the time of airing, the show was still on a major network and is still hosted on major streaming services to this day (currently on Hulu). Deleting this show would suggest that about 40% of the show articles linked in the "History original programming" navigation list should be deleted for similar levels of notability (of course, doing just this could be argued, but would likely require be a larger discussion). A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is "keep it because other shows exist, and because sourcing is merely optional." Got it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to improve the quality of the article's listed sourcing you're welcome to do so yourself or request someone else to do so. Another user below us has done just that which seems to be an acceptable level of sourcing to me. It's a matter of putting a little effort into it. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Improve the quality" with what? The sources I didn't find at all? You can't make something from nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. López García, Tania (2014-05-06). "La representación de la historia a través del documental: el caso de El Efecto Nostradamus" [The representation of the history through de documentary format: the case of Nostradamus Effect.]. Historia y Comunicación Social (in Spanish). 19: 491–497. doi:10.5209/rev_HICS.2014.v19.45149. ISSN 1137-0734. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
  The abstract notes: "The television series Nostradamus Effect, shows many different theories about how would be the end of the world. It emphasized the year 2012 following the knowledge of several cultures as Mayans, Hopis, Christianity and Islamic fundamentalism, it tries to reflect on pictures the surmises that will lead us to the end of our days."
  The article notes from Google Translate: "At the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010, the History Channel broadcast for the first time in the United States, the documentary series, The Nostradamus Effect, a compendium of twelve episodes dedicated to capturing in images what the end of the world would be like according to the prophetic arguments of ancient cultures and that have reached our days. ... Another trend within the series is to make the viewer see how a rational, studious and advanced person in his time is capable of believing, appreciating and developing his own theories about what lies ahead for humanity. Episodes 3 and 8 expose us to the investigations of Leonardo da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton respectively. Finally, and in correspondence with the majority beliefs of the target to whom the documentary series is focused, we find several personifications of Christian culture, as well as the recreation of decisive moments that are exemplified with attacks, natural catastrophes and recent epidemics."
2. Bannon, Anne Louise (2022-03-02). "Nostradamus Effect. TV review by Anne Louise Bannon, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
  The review notes: "If you're looking for a way to start teaching your kids the very important task of how to assess credibility, Nostradamus Effect is a fine place to start ... but then you'd have to actually watch it, and that may not be a worthwhile trade-off. Most of the talking heads featured on the show have no academic background, and much of their "proof" is based on segments of sentences in larger works that sound eerily omniscient but are in fact so vague that they could mean all kinds of things. All of which is accompanied by spooky music and effects and ominous pronouncements ..."
3. Gregory, Sara (2009-10-16). "The end is near: beware of 2060". The Western Courier. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
  This is an article from a student newspaper at Western Illinois University. The review notes: "As it turns out, The History Channel can be pretty captivating. Last week a “Nostradamus Effect” episode revealed that Isaac Newton claimed a secret prophecy of the world ending in 2060. ... But alas, I was captivated by The History Channel’s crappy reenactments and distorted voiceovers, hypnotized like watching Lifetime, where everything is such a train wreck that I can’t look away. Between booming Bible passages and historic information about Newton, the narrator warns that this episode “only presents the facts.” If you can get over the dude portraying Newton reading books and playing with his hair, the facts are pretty intriguing."
4. "The Nostradamus Effect". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
  The article notes: ""The Nostradamus Effect" explores apocalyptic prophecies such as Nostradamus' claim that three antichrists would plague mankind. Some believe clues hidden in Nostradamus' writings point to Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler being the first two antichrists, but the third one remains a mystery."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Ryan, Andrew (2011-05-16). "Monday night on TV / critical picks". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08 – via Gale.
    The article notes: "Nostradamus Effect. History, 7 p.m. Was Nostradamus truly omniscient or just a boastful know-it-all? This series examines both possibilities, though leans mostly toward the conclusion that the French seer was astoundingly accurate with most of the prophecies he made more than 450 years ago. Tonight's episode, for example, examines Nostradamus's famous prediction of Adolf Hitler rising to power in Germany in the thirties and forties. A panel of historians painstakingly deconstruct the prognostication, which included such minutiae as the fact that three of Hitler's own officers would attempt to kill him. Eerie stuff."
  2. Shattuck, Kathryn (2009-09-09). "What's On Today". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article notes: "9 P.M. (History) NOSTRADAMUS EFFECT The prophet Nostradamus predicted the arrival of three anti-Christs who would wreak havoc on mankind. For those who believe the prophecy, clues suggest that Napoleon may have been the first and Hitler the second. But who is the third? This series premiere speculates."
  3. Donovan, Barna William (2011). Conspiracy Films: A Tour of Dark Places in the American Conscious. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 193. ISBN 978-0-7864-3901-0. Retrieved 2022-05-08 – via Google Books.
    The book provides three sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In 2009, the History Channel even went one step beyond its frequent specials about apocalyptic prophecies and devoted an entire weekly series called The Nostradamus Effect to end-time predictions. The premise of the show is the investigation of whether the tumultuous world events of the 2000s might have been predicted by seers like Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, the Chinese I-Ching divination techniques, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Oracle of Delphi, and various others throughout history. If reasonable signs seem to suggest that more than one of these ancient seers appeared to have foretold the problems of the modern world, the show asks if one may give the doomsday prophecies some credence because of this sort of future-casting triangulation method."
  4. LoBrutto, Vincent (2018). "The History Channel (1995–2008; renamed History, 2008–)". TV in the USA: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-4408-2972-7. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "The channel has been subject to criticism by scientists, historians, and skeptics for airing sensational programming such as Ancient Aliens (2010–), UFO Hunters (2008–2009), Brad Meltzer's Decoded (2010–2012), and Nostradamus Effect (2009), which has been labeled as fiction and absurdity."
  5. Newsome, Brad (2010-02-04). "Pay TV - Sunday, February 7". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08 – via Gale.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Nostradamus Decoded Discovery, 7.30pm NOSTRA-BLOODY-DAMUS again? As if it's not enough that the History Channel is running a whole series about him (The Nostradamus Effect, Mondays, 7.30pm), here we have two more hours of typical Discovery mystery-mongering on the subject."
  6. Levy, David A. (2019). Life Is a 4-Letter Word: Laughing and Learning Through 40 Life Lessons. Coral Gables, Florida: Mango Publishing. ISBN 978-1-64250-154-4. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "One rainy Sunday afternoon, I sat glued to The History Channel (back when The History Channel used to broadcast actual documentaries about actual history — rather than serving up pseudo-documentary fare like "UFO Hunters," "Nostradamus Effect," and "Ancient Aliens"), binge watching a series on military aircraft."
  7. Andrews, Bill (August 2011). "What happened to science education?". Astronomy. Vol. 39, no. 8. EBSCOhost 65493815.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "And it should go without saying -- but sadly doesn't -- that shows about pseudoscience (History Channel's The Nostradamus Effect and Ancient Aliens, for example) are also not the answer."
  8. Lowry, Brian (2010-06-26). "Wackadoodle demo widens". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "But History -- having dispensed with the shackles of history as a niche -- has also been an early adopter, yielding programs like the self-explanatory "Nostradamus Effect," "Armageddon" and "Apocalypse Island" (no relation to "Temptation Island"), a special about Mayan predictions of cataclysmic events occurring in 2012."
  9. Dickey, Colin (Fall 2011). "Quack Prophet: The prophecies of Nostradamus were cryptic and garbled—but they also let us see what we wanted to see". Lapham's Quarterly. Vol. 4, no. 4. EBSCOhost 66570662. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Or turn on the History Channel, and you might catch repeats of The Nostradamus Effect, a show that explored apocalyptic prophecies throughout history, with episodes bearing titles like “The Third Anti-Christ?” and “Armageddon Battle Plan.”"
  10. Hibberd, James (2009-05-13). "History launches original series, specials". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The network’s other greenlighted series are “WWII in HD,” which restores thousands of hours of archival footage into HD; “MysteryQuest,” in which modern science tackles ancient myths; and the prophecy investigation show “Nostradamus Effect.”"
  11. "Wednesday's Highlights: John Larroquette guest stars on 'Law & Order: Special Victims Unit'". Los Angeles Times. 2009-12-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Nostradamus Effect: In the new episode "Armageddon Battle Plan," researchers explore the writings contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which detail a future apocalyptic war that will end the world, and claim to find an amazing "coincidence" between events that are unfolding now and those foretold in the War Scroll (9 p.m. History)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nostradamus Effect to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of those is trivial and only dedicates a sentence or two to the show. Common Sense Media's review is the only one I could consider significant coverage. The others are about the idea of the effect as a whole, and just casually name-drop the show in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both López García 2014 and Bannon 2022 provide very substantial coverage about the subject while Gregory 2009 provides critical analysis about the TV series. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To follow-up on my prior comment, I now !vote keep based on Cunard's good research. Nostradamus is wrong again (I hope)!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:42, 12 May 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 Space Ghost Coast to Coast. Consensus to redirect vs. keep as a standalone is clear. This seems to be the location with consensus, but if someone chooses a new target, that's an editorial discussion Star Mississippi 03:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zorak[edit]

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

No out-of-universe notability established for any of these characters. Mostly consists of fancruft, episode transcripts, passing mentions, or other WP:PRIMARY sources. There seems to be very little worth merging to Space Ghost Coast to Coast or related shows. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space Ghost TV show. The current article contains no evidence of stand-alone notability and is just fancruft, but SOFTDELETION is an option. After this is closed, I suggest AfDing (or just boldly redirecting?) Brak (character). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - both to List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast characters, where they are already covered. While they may have originated in the original Space Ghost series, they are generally much more well known for their roles in Coast to Coast and its spinoffs than anything else, making that the better target. Neither character has sufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources where spinout articles are justified. Rorshacma (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Space Ghost. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacm's suggestion. Even Space Ghost's notability is tied more to C2C than the original cartoon. --Danish Ranger (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Ottoman Turkey[edit]

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

Self-published, non-notable book. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5: the author has been blocked as a sockpuppet. (I have no firm opinion on whether the book is notable, although I'm thinking it isn't.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Farimani[edit]

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

I believe this is a hoax created by Hitstv (talk · contribs). Google has never heard of this player despite the fact that he was supposedly named "the greatest talent of the 21st century" and scored a staggering 356 goals at the tender age of 25. Other oddities are that he played for the U-17 Syrian national team despite the fact that he was born in Iran (not impossible but odd). The article claims that he played in the 2012 U-17 Asian Cup for Syria but his name doesn't appear in Syria's game reports at that event ([11] [12] [13]). The only links to this page (which have been removed) were the results of edits by Hitstv. Pichpich (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. Pichpich (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G3 I don't see the point in this AfD. Speedy delete per G3. Govvy (talk) 21:48, 5 May 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. Regardless of whether this could/should have been speedied, consensus is clear that sourcing concerns mean it does not merit a standalone article. Star Mississippi 03:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qmamu[edit]

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

This article had its A7 tag removed, but the company/product is plainly lacking in WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sources are of the spammy/press release variety. agtx 20:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. agtx 20:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For what it's worth, I removed the Speedy A7 because the article didn't qualify. It could still be deleted after discussion of course. I recommend at least looking at the APN News and Hans India articles. With these two, the subject should pass WP:GNG. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability. I believe we will conclude that this a stub article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles are extraordinarily similar and really feel like press releases. I can't speak to the reliability of these publications, but they seem fishy. agtx 20:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that both articles have almost the same content, have been published around the same date, and are pretty obviously promotional per their final paragraphs, especially "So, what are we waiting for? Let us take another step towards Atmanirbhar India by adopting the Qmamu search engine, which is dedicated entirely to India and its people." ~Styyx^Talk? 20:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmcdonald Could you perhaps enlighten me as to how either of those sources - which are both a word for word identical press release, contribute to notability? PRAXIDICAE💕 21:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete APN and Hans India are both paid for blackhat SEO and utterly unconvincing as a source even if they weren't. This is nothing more than a poor attempt to spam Wikipedia about a non notable search engine and quite frankly the decline "based on the talk page" is mind boggling. Are we now supporting using WP for SEO, as the creator stated? PRAXIDICAE💕 21:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's confirmed, that would be reason enough to strike my position--but I'd need more than just a comment. Is there a discussion? Consensus? Source? The Speedy was declined based on the reasons given at the talk page, an assertion of notability was present and the speedy was contested, which is generally accepted as reason enough to kick it to a discussion. That's what we're doing here. I don't see any reason at this time to accept the claim that the sources are not reliable. If evidence were presented, that would change things.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Wikipedia article The Hans India portrays the publisher as legit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And a quick look at the edit history shows many, many likely COI edits. Wouldn't go by that. agtx 16:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the edit history and see no indications of such an accusation. Do you have any examples? Is there any consensus for that conclusion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
edit by user with the same name as the page, another, and other, user who has only edited that page, another user who has only edited that page agtx 20:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of editors on that page, it's had oversight. If the Wikipedia editor is related to the article subject, that's not a policy violation. They "shouldn't" do it but they can. Suspicious? Yeah, but with other editors involved I'm not seeing it. If you want to make that an issue, go right ahead. I'm not the final decision-maker, but I find the "evidence" to be underwhelming. Worst case, WP:COI is a guideline and generally is not a reason to delete an article anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that's not evidence to delete this page. It's evidence you shouldn't trust the Wikipedia article on The Hans India when it portrays the subject of that article as legitimate. agtx 20:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. I'm not convinced that The Hans India is not a reliable source just now. I'm open to the possibility that it might be unreliable and I don't get it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. MarioGom (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom (by way of disclosure, I was one of the CSD:A7s). The Hans India is not WP:RS. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently cited references are also reliable and independent of the article secondary sources. Two of them are recognized news networks and the third one is a federal government agency responsible for recognizing corporates. Of course, more secondary sources shall be looked for and added . Anil Prasad 04:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apletters (talk • contribs)

Delete First off, lets pick the appropriate guideline. Since this is a company/organization, NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
- Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
- "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH. So, lets look at the references....
  - This from APN News has no attributed journalist which means it is a "big red flag" and likely fails WP:RS. Given that the company was founded less that a month prior to this article, the very long quote provided by the founder and the promotional up-beat language, it clearly relies entirely on information provided (written?) by the company. It is certainly not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. It is also a direct word-for-word copy of the Hans India article so therefore cannot be "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This from Hans India (and also discussed above) is a word-for-word copy of the exact same article in APN News above. For the same reasons as above, this reference also fails WP:ORGIND.

The other references were mere mentions-in-passing, confirmation of the incorporation/existence on a government website, fails SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. Not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As defended in the talk page of the article and seen in the initial part of this discussion thread, it is a stub for the listing under localized search engines. Many localized listings carry stub pages. It is appropirate too. I think, there is not much merit in discussing a stub as if a full-fledged article. It has citations as well --Anil Prasad 09:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Nonsense. There's nothing in our guidelines which says that a "stub" is allowed even in circumstances where the topic fails our notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TVP Seriale[edit]

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

This article cites no sources, and generally gives no indication of importance CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify if the creator is active. Pl wiki article has a lot of refs, but IMHO it's all at press release level, reporting routine operations of this channel. Anyway, our version is a substub that fails WP:V and WP:GNG and I don't feel like doing a paid editor's job propping this catalogue entry up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a stub with zero sourcing, which is odd, given this TV channel has been around for over a decade.TH1980 (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Gulf Breeze[edit]

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

Poorly sourced list of mayors of a small town. Gulf Breeze (pop. 7K) is not a large enough city that its mayors would be presumed notable just for being mayors, with the result that absolutely nobody in this list has a Wikipedia article to link to -- but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not helping to establish the notability of the mayors, with the exception of one article in the local pennysaver which appears to be here solely to support the year in which the city was incorporated rather than the identity or term dates of any of the mayors.
As always, the core purpose of a Wikipedia list is to help readers locate Wikipedia articles -- there's absolutely no value in maintaining a primary-sourced list of entirely non-notable people. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it will not maintain links to the (nonexistent) Wikipedia pages to the former mayors, the article can only be about the office from now on. This article is not just about who has served as mayor, rather what the office is. Just like the Wikipedia page for the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office, the page has a list of former sheriffs, but is not about the sheriffs themselves. The sources are still being improved, as the page was just created yesterday (As of May 5, 2022). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoniKen (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not linking the mayors' names doesn't make the page "not a list anymore" — if their names are still present in the article at all, then the page is still a list, and it's a list with no reason to exist if nobody named in the article has a biographical article to link to. (But don't think that means I'm saying the page would be fine if the list of mayors were stripped entirely, because an article about the position would have no value at all if the mayors weren't named in it either.) Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small town mayoral position with no evidence of notability. Primarily a list which fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a place of less than 10,000 people that is not even regionally important, regionally important places are places like Pensecola. There is no justification at all for such an indepth article built around sourcing from the local (but not even Gulf Breeze named) newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 6 May 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 Slipknot (album). ✗plicit 23:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surfacing (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPSONG. There is an article about the album which includes this song at Slipknot_(album). Separate notability for the song alone not established. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect to Slipknot (album), it doesn't appear that sufficient coverage exists for it to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slipknot (album) - The song has a little of its own media notice as a favorite among fans and critics, but that is not enough for a stand-alone article and some tidbits of trivia can be mentioned at the album's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not enough content or sourcing to warrant a split, especially once you trim out the unsourced or poorly sourced content (which is most of it.) The bit from Kerrang is probably worth mentioning in the album article if it isn't already. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 8 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UFM100.3[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources cited. Current version of article copied from a mirror of an older version <https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/UFM_1003.html>. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search comes up with multiple sources, such as this, this and this, and this shows even more.Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see 96.3 Hao FM, which was restored by the same user. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BCAST with sources presented by Somebodyidkfkdt. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to weigh in but please also discuss the entire set of SPH radio articles which are in dispute here: Talk:SPH Media Trust. Thanks. Also pinging @Justlettersandnumbers: and @TheGreatSG'rean: to bring this to the attention of relevant people.--Officer781 (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Third World War Book[edit]

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

no significant secondary coverage, fails WP:BOOKCRIT — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find where this book has received coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If kept rename to The Third World War (book). It appears to be incorrectly categorised as a novel, whereas it is actually history/current affairs. The author is a medical doctor not an academic historian or journalist or similar specialist. Even if potentially notable when published, such work seeking to discuss what the future might be rapidly become obsolete as international affairs develop in a way the author has not predicted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 8 May 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 23:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Satcharitra[edit]

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

no significant secondary sources, fails WP:BOOKCRIT — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen P. Gordon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This is a case of WP:REFBOMB: While there are 70+ citations, there does not appear to be even one WP:RS-compliant source that contains more than a trivial mention of Gordon, and several of them don't mention him at all. The vast majority of the sources are primary and/or non-RS. A WP:BEFORE search done on Google and other search engines found no significant coverage of the subject in sources that would satisfy notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Barr 2008 presidential campaign#Libertarian Party nomination campaign, where the subject is mentioned as a campaign manager for Bob Barr and a campaigner for Ron Paul. Per nom, this is a good example of WP:REFBOMBing with nothing in the way of reliable sources propping up this article. I say this after using a search engine and going through the references. StonyBrook _babble 23:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An impressive resume in the field of political/campaign consulting does not satisfy WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 08:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that there is a strong enough connection for a redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 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. Nominator has partially withdrawn. The discussion as to whether to keep or redirect can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Berger[edit]

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

Article was written by the subject of the article it appears, and doesn't seem to meet GNG. Possible WP:TOOSOON. At the very least, the article is simply promotional, and is a TNT candidate. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete grad student filmmakers are normally not notable, and there are not even any sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 5 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the article can be fact checked so no bias is involved. It is not for promotion but rather to connect the discovery of Australopithecus sediba to the person who discovered the first fossils. There is still more to be added to the article. I have been asked multiple times to link a page from the discovery of Australopithecus sediba and Homo naledi to myself so am creating it for this reason. Mattyberger (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been added since this afd nomination was made. There are now citations from Discover Magazine, The New York Times, and CBS News that contain non-trivial coverage of the subject. I found these as well: [14], [15]. There's also this article from Smithsonian Magazine that includes his discovery of Australopithecus sediba on its list of "The Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of the Decade". This is a WP:GNG pass, and the obvious WP:COI issues do not detract from the subject's notability.Sal2100 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least as the redirect that I created over 12 years ago. Our subject is important for the discovery, not for being a grad student! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett, I actually agree with your assessment, as well as Sal2100. I would W/D the nomination but there's already a delete !vote which prevents me from doing so (I think.) Either way, the article does seem to be written like a resume (in my opinion,) and should probably be adjusted to reflect much more on his discovery, rather than his education/aspirations, which seems to weighted much more. But I will note that I would like to Withdraw this nomination. Thanks! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could strike through the parts of your nomination that you don't agree with.! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Australopithecus sediba~~ Seems to fall squarely in the ambit of WP:1E and WP:PSEUDO, and coupled with the WP:COI editing makes me wary, but I'd love to be proved wrong. If there was an interview with Matthew or some other independent, in-depth coverage of him in a WP:RS (which he well may have deserved, but didn't receive), I'd vote keep. Park3r (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Park3r, hope you are well. There have been multiple independent interviews done by companies such as 60 minutes, PBS NOVA, CNN etc. Here are a few links to some but more can be found all over the web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kL67C_OMUY&ab_channel=EvolutionSoup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JL-oyuVmeI&ab_channel=CBS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0OT2Z50g4g&t=842s&ab_channel=JohnS.Mead Mattyberger (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the 60 Minutes interview I'm leaning towards weak keep on the basis of WP:GNG. I'm not sure about the others as they seem to fall afoul of WP:BLPSPS.Park3r (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australopithecus sediba. It's a great story, but it's a great example of WP:1E. It can be covered at the Australopithecus sediba article, no need for a stand-alone article unless something else happens. If it does, the article history will be preserved at the redirect for easy expansion. Jacona (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been involved in the discovery of Homo naledi, another new species of human ancestor. I have yet to update this page though with that discovery due to time but will do so soon so that it will show it cannot only be a redirect to A. sediba as there will be two major discoveries. Mattyberger (talk) 18:18, 11 May 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 23:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shazie Kapoli[edit]

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

Unable to find significant independent coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated, there is no evidence anywhere on the web of meeting WP:GNG. Most search results appear to be mirror sites or user-generated directories of some sort. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Albania. J04n(talk page) 16:00, 5 May 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 23:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William James Maloney[edit]

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

WP:GNG is definitely not met, and I can't see that WP:NPROF is met, either. The only independent sources are two pieces in The Journal News – the rest is his own books and articles. He is also not notable per WP:NAUTHOR. He is listed in the article as a "co-author" of The ADA Practical Guide to Substance Use Disorders and Safe Prescribing but in fact he is the co-author of one chapter in that publication; his Medical Lives of History's Famous People has no reviews I can find; and his remaining four books are from a vanity publisher (Anaphora Literary Press), and are also not reviewed in any independent publication. bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does not seem to have a lot of academic reputation, definitely not enough for WP:SCHOLAR. I have entertained the possibility of WP:NAUTHOR for his two major publications. One, The ADA Practical Guide etc., might be notable, but he has co-written a single chapter in a pretty large collection, it's not exactly a monograph that would substantiate his expertise. Medical Lives was published by Bentham, which is pretty much a borderline vanity press. Overall, I find neither WP:SCHOLAR, nor WP:NAUTHOR substantiates notability. Ergo delete.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:05, 10 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pasi Karppinen[edit]

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

Third-Divison Finnish footballer who appears to have very little coverage to no coverage. I tried searching his name but found nothing ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject seems to lack significant coverage. At least I can't find any from a google/news search. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at least as far as internet searches are concerned, no evidence of any substantial coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite being active during a time period covered by the Helsingin Sanomat digital archive, the only hits to a search by name appear to be sports results listings etc. Not seeing sufficient coverage to establish notability. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:17, 11 May 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churaman Ahir[edit]

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

A quick Google search doesn’t bring anything notable about this individual other than Wikipedia mirror pages. The only source itself is not very reliable either. Little evidence of this individual being notable or worthy of an article. RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator obviously didn't do WP:BEFORE. They clearly didn't conduct a search in the native language, provided by the corresponding article in Hindi Wikipedia, which also has a number of sources. Curbon7 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The “corresponding” article on Hindi Wikipedia is for a Churaman (commonly known as Churaman Jat) who is a separate individual entirely. Passive aggressive comment notwithstanding, a basic knowledge of Indian history would help in this situation. Nice try though. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the linked Hindi article, which is clearly about the same person. In fact the articles are so similar that one seems to be a translation of the other. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is another source which refers to the same person [16] Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source in any language. So unless someone can explain exactly why the sources found are reliable, just having a Wikipedia article in another language is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse commentary about nominator etc. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not aware much about the topic but i have a fair idea that the nominator lacks the proper knowledge about WP:GNG. I am observing a number of articles where they have kept the notability tag, despite the fact that they are notable topic. May be this nomination is because of same issue.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Heba Aisha: who is they here? There is a single person nominating here Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am talking about him only. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] See singular they. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Heba Aisha: wasn't aware, my apologies. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse commentary about nominator etc. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not aware much about the topic but i have a fair idea that the nominator lacks the proper knowledge about WP:GNG. I am observing a number of articles where they have kept the notability tag, despite the fact that they are notable topic. May be this nomination is because of same issue.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha: who is they here? There is a single person nominating here Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about him only. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See singular they. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Heba Aisha: wasn't aware, my apologies. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination but allow redirect to any suitable target, if found. Mehta (1984), cited in hi.wiki, is not a (HIST)RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: what about this source? [17] Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article is mentioned in a few sources, though not usually as "Churaman Ahir", but given the shallowness of coverage and the borderline quality of sources, he doesn't meet WP:GNG or merit a stand-alone article. And the current title is not a suitable one for even creating a redirect.

And now for the longer explanation with example of typical coverage:

Mishra (2008) (not necessarily WP:RS/WP:HISTRS), says that "Rao Churaman who was of Ahir caste" was granted 22 villages near Kaimori (sp?) in Jabalpur district in 1722 for his services as a garrison leader to Narendrashah; Churaman established his son Hamirdev there; Churaman's influence extended up to Deori, Sagar until 1731, when Narendrashah snatched Deori back. That's the extent of coverage to which ~5 lines of the book are devoted in a para that begins with (rough translation) We also have knowledge of some ordinary dealings during Narendrashah's time.
The 1968 district-level gazetteer for Japalpur says under its entry for Kaimuri that the town was founded in the beginning of the 17th century by one Rao Churaman employed in the military service of Raja Narind Shah (1679-1727), the Gond Raja of Garha-Mandla. For the military service offered, the Raja granted to the Rao a jagir of 22 villages around Kaimuri and the Rao named the place after the neighbouring range of hills. No mention of Ahir Similar coverage, with no added depth, can be found in later editions.

As far as I could determine, wikipedia does not have coverage of the ruler who granted the land to Rao Churaman, or of Kaimori village/town. If an article on the latter is created, that can contain a one-line mention of, and a redirect from, Rao Churaman. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge. "22 villages around Kaimuri and the Rao named the place after the neighbouring range of hills." This range of hills is the Kaimur Range and it states clearly the range extends up to Katangi. SpinningSpark 15:56, 14 May 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 Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four. This one is more complex then some of the recent Olympians even when disregarding some of the non-policy based input. Sourcing at the moment does not appear to exist to meet ANYBIO, but there appears to be a chance it could be found. Therefore redirect preserves the history, attribution should someone want to spin this back out when sourcing is added. Star Mississippi 03:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Starkey (rower)[edit]

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

Starkey was a non-medaling rower. The disambiguation makes it a poor redirect. My searches were not able to find any examples of any significant coverage of Starkey John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also known as Brendan Starkey per his brief bio. Found a small obit after he moved to Canada. Possibilty of more info on him, but if nothing else crops up, then redirect to Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympedia bio is not enough to be called significant coverage, and is just one source. And (sigh) that's not an obit, it's a death notice placed by the family. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting would be better than deleting. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; unless and until a "List of British Olympic rowers" (where a brief bio could be written) exists there is no suitable target as the two articles where he is mentioned say almost nothing about him. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Lugnuts, as I was not able to find any SIGCOV in searches on Newspapers.com, Proquest and google. Please ping me if SIGCOV is found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four. I added a newspaperarchive.com search, and found nothing of use. Jacona (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ANYBIO per biography found by User:Lugnuts. gidonb (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The bio is from olympedia.org, which has bios of each olympian. For him to pass ANYBIO he would need to have one in a country's national biographical dictionary. BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeanieFan11, actually Olympedia doesn't have bios for each Olympian. Olympedia.org is registered in the UK and is developed by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians, also centered in the UK. It does have some international coverage but Bob Starkey (rower) is NOT part of that international coverage. Starkey represented Great Britain, here the United Kingdom, in the 1928 Summer Olympics. ANYBIO is met with - sorry, this is not related to your comment but I forgot to mention this in my keep opinion - ABSOLUTELY NO WP:BLP CONCERN! gidonb (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have established that A-not all Olympians are notable B-Olympedia.org is not in-depth enough or limited enough to alone be enough to establish notability. The bio is not at a level that would meet the criteria as you try to argue it would.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He comprehensively fails every criteria of ANYBIO since (as far as we know from the sources we have) he has not received or been nominated for any award or honour; has not made a widely recognised contribution to anything (being listed as a competitor in an event, even at the Olympics, is not enough); and does not have an entry in any national biographical dictionary. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 lines is not a "bio" is is just part of a sports stat page. People need to stop abusing words. There is no way every that the Olympiamedia 3 lines meets the requirments of anybio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the full text of the alledged "brief bio". This is not a bio at all. In fact it focuses more on the team Starkey was part of than the individual. This is not by any strestch of the imagination enough for meting I guess point 3 which is "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." Olympedia is not a dictionary of national biography. So that point is not met. Clearly he does not meet 1, because merely participating in the Olympics is not a honor enough to merit an article, and I am not seeing at all how we could argue he made an enduring contribution to the national record.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert - DO NOT copy and paste text from another website and add it to anywhere on Wikipedia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three responses by the nominator! My response will start with a bit of context. Bob Starkey is a historic figure, who died more than half a century ago!!! Meaning there is absolutely no WP:BLP concern. He engaged in a team sport, so some of his activities would be shared with others. The National Dictionary question had just been asked, it was a great question, and had been adequately answered. Both Olympedia and the International Society of Olympic Historians are centered in the UK, as was Bob Starkey while still a sportsman, so in this case it is a National Dictionary coverage. It should be noted and accepted, perhaps even appreciated, if only for the fact that it is unstoppable anyway, that the world is gradually globalizing and that national dictionaries are becoming more globalized as well. So Olympedia has international coverage but that isn't important as Starkey is part of its National Dictionary coverage. The biographies in Olympedia are written by true sports historians, the content is reliable and independent, so we should count our blessings with this resource. Keeping the sillies to the end: the idea that this is not a biography is laughable with "biography" written right above it. The nominator then uses the small font and long lines for a desperate claim about the length. Starkey's immigration, right there in his BIOGRAPHY, had hopefully nothing to do with any former teammate either. It's clearly Starkey's own biography! gidonb (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, no, no, no. Olympia is not a dictionary of national biography. There is a British National Biogrpahical Dictionary, Olympia is not it. Olympia is a sports database. It is not a source that adds towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - What does Olympia have to do with this discussion?Jacona (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I meant Olympedia. It is an overly comprehensive database, it is not a source that can be used to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for clarifying, but why is Olympedia not a source that can be used to show notability? It is not listed as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It is frequently used as a WP:RS. It has many in-depth articles that provide WP:SIGCOV. It is compiled and maintained by members of the International Society of Olympic Historians. Do you have any reason to call it unreliable? Jacona (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: The issue is not that Olympedia is unreliable. It's that SIGCOV requires some depth of coverage, and it is generally agreed that database entries like this don't qualify as such. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is that we have an editor who can't tell the difference between Olympia and Olympedia claiming all sorts of nonsense competency is required. Jacona (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link says "assume good faith". The good faith assumption is that I misspelled a word. I had clearly looked at the page in question, and was clearly stating that it was not enough sourcing to constitute significant coverage. The personal attacks you are carying on are very rude and the antithesis of the type of postive discourse that would amount to assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the personal attacks, especially for an error that is very easy to make and when it is patently obvious what was meant. Incidentally, you should know that not being listed at perennial sources does not infer reliability; indeed, there have been many occasions to question the reliability of Olympedia (e.g. see recent changes to 1900 equestrian, where among other things, at least three competitors had been mis-identified) and I would want to see intellectually independent corroborating sources for much of it's data, especially for earlier Olympics and Olympians. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really anything personal, WP:CIR, and across a wide plethora of AfD's there is a body of evidence showing it's lacking. It's probably not due to a lack of skill, but rather a lack of effort. Jacona (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First there was nothing new in what JPL said. Now there is nothing new in what JPL said himself. It has all been thoroughly answered and explained so I'll keep it at that. gidonb (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, finalist of the “Wyfold Challenge Cup” a main rowing matches in that era. What if he had one 5 main competitions? Or 10? The performances is the most important content for Olympians. There are also Olympic medalist with not much more information. If a historian or interested person would be interested in such a person, his performances couldn’t be found on Wikipedia anymore be deleting this page. I understand that it’s not a long bio, but what does that matter? Or to save all the bits of historical bio content it would be nice to have a page like Rowers at the 1928 Summer Olympics, or at least a page where bits of biographic content of the rower could be added. 109.37.149.67 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing would be lost since he would still be listed in both the articles that he is currently. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as searches (by BeanieFan, Jacona, JohnPackLambert, and others) have failed to turn up WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The "obituary" offered above (here) appears to be a paid death notice, does not in any way constitute SIGCOV, and makes no mention of his "athletic career" -- strongly undermining any assertion that he is notable for such. Finally, it is well established that inclusion in comprehensive databases like Olympedia do NOT constitute SIGCOV. Accordingly, we are left with ZERO in the way of SIGCOV, and the "keep" voters are simply straining to undermine the prior decision that mere participation in the Olympics does not create a presumption of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The very fact that the death notice does not mention sports at all is a strong indication he was not at all notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. For even the slightest beginning of such an indication you would need his post-sports career to be mentioned, trumping the rest. Not there. gidonb (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. If he was notable as an athlete, some mention would be made ... and there would be more than just a paid death notice. There isn't, because he wasn't. Cbl62 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what else appeared where because digitization is not comprehensive. British Olympedia contains sports biographies and includes the rower's death. We work with we have. This paid death announcement does not include career details, one way or the other, so nothing can be concluded thereafter. gidonb (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't know what else appeared where" is not a justification for a stand-alone article. Absent a showing of SIGCOV, this really should be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NP as this was not the context the phrase was used. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Olympedia is clearly not a source providing significant coverage. Even if it were, which again it is not in this case, GNG requires multiple sources, so that is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This point too has been explained under my opinion. We'll see where all this repeating leads too. gidonb (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is that nobody has come up with any SIGCOV whatsoever. Absent that, there is no basis for a stand-alone article. And per the discussion at NSPORTS (here), the Olympedia entry presented here does not constitute SIGCOV. Nor does the paid death notice. Cbl62 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you believe from the get-go. The question is really whether repeating one's opinion again and again and again helps. It's possible. Time will tell. 21:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed -- though despite the volubility, I still don't understand what policy-based rationale supports a "Keep" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you did not look everywhere. I'm more than ok with that. gidonb (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one source you suggest has been shown to not be enough to meet GNG, and you have provided nothing that would add to GNG. The Olympedia source with 1 sentance on this person and a few more about other things coatracking on the brief biography and the paid death notice that does not even mention his sports career are not enough to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the subject meets GNG/BASIC as is required for a standalone article. Olympedia is the only source of value, but it contains little beyond the usual database record since he is really only the subject of one sentence of the bio, the rest being about the Nottingham Union Boat Club. No value in a redirect as the two potential targets only contain namedrops and the search function will do the job in finding these. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion has been blown out of proportion because it has been raised elsewhere on the sports notability where consensus is hard to reach. There are literally thousands of Olympians with one sentence pages noting participation. This athlete can be verified to have competed. While I understand notability and article quality are principles of wikipedia. It is far to late with Olympic competitors and redirecting to the event is not acceptable as the event is an event and an athlete is a person. I feel sorry for the pages creator as the other 1000 pages are not being critised to this degree. Yachty4000 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are not kept because other articles of as bad or worse quality exist. We jusge articles against Wikipedia inclusion criteria, not against the current state of other articles. Wikipedia inclusion criteria means articles have to meet GNG, which this article does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for "the other 1000 pages are not being critised to this degree", WP:OSE is not a reason to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are actually multiple nominations in process and have been many more over the last few months of non-notable Olympians. Unlike the creator of some of these articles, those of us nominating them for deletion have actually tried to do in-depth searches to find possible sources. That is a much harder process than repositing the stat table info from sports reference.com which was what was done in creating many of these articles. At times there have been people complain that too many olympain articles have been nominated for deletion, which makes this attempt to keep this article because we have not bothered to create a large enough mass of articles for deletion all at once seems unreasonable in the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is an excessive amount of bludgeoning going on, extremely repetitive, by the nominator and two others who happen to share his opinion, under the opinion of anyone who dears to reach the conclusion that keeping is the correct way forward. I ask for moderator closing and review. gidonb (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not "bludgeoning" to point out when votes are based on misundersstandings and false statements about policy. No one has presented anything that would add up to the multiple reliable sources that are indepdent of the subject and each other and that provide significant in-depth coverage that is needed to justify an article. The Olympedia entry does not do that. The paid death notice that does not even mention the amateur sports competition does not do that. There is not one source proferred that is enough to even add towards GNG, let alone the multiple sources it requires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 12 May 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 Las Leyendas Nunca Mueren. The song's charting can be discussed in the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subelo (Anuel AA, Myke Towers and Jhay Cortez song)[edit]

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

Article about a song, not properly referenced as passing WP:NSONGS. The claims here are that it charted Top 40 in Spain and Bubbling Under in the US -- but Bubbling Under isn't a notability claim at all, and the Spanish claim fails to name or source which chart provider it's talking about. Since the world is filled with WP:BADCHARTS that aren't support for notability (iTunes, standalone radio stations, etc.), it's not enough to just assert that a song charted -- you have to provide proper verification in reliable sources that the song charted on an IFPI-certified national pop chart before a song has any claim to passing NSONGS #1, and even then you still have to show more sourcing about the song (i.e. actual coverage and critical analysis) than just a chart placement alone. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Puerto Rico. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it did reach no. 15 on the official PROMUSICAE Spanish charts [18]. This article was recreated by an editor who has a history of creating articles for the singer Anuel AA, but consistently fails to provide any sourcing for them, often using unsourced gossip or social media announcements. Richard3120 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSONG as is. AshMusique (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Las Leyendas Nunca Mueren. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 03:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish " Foot Soldier of India "[edit]

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

Although He does have sources but "Foot Soldier" is not a Notable category in existence and as mentioned a Social Activist sources doesn't shares spotlight on that aspect, A Consensus would do the justice, Let others decide Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Education. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There's quite a bit of coverage even in reliable outlets, although much of it is interviews, ephemeral news coverage, and the like. A delete !vote might be justifiable, but I think draftification would be a better solution: it gives the article's creator (who, judging from the username, likely has a COI) time to shore up notability by citing sources that are independent and secondary (i.e. analysis, not just repeating what Sharma has to say) and also to fix the article's rather promotional tone before submitting it through articles for creation. If the article is kept, it should be moved to a more appropriate title such as Ashish Sharma (activist); the current one is not neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity in full agreement with Extraordinary Writ CT55555 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 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 that editing subsequent to the nomination establishes notability. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ericdoa[edit]

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

Ericdoa

Musical artist and record producer who does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. This article has tone problems and appears to have been written to praise or promote its subject The sources have not yet been checked, but an article should speak for itself and explain what notability criterion is satisfied, and this article does not. The typo in the lede sentence as to the subject's date of birth (saying 2007, as opposed to the 2002 in the infobox) is evidence of sloppiness and haste. A previous article on the subject was deleted as G11, and the originator may have been in a hurry to get a new article listed. The good-faith explanation may be that the author is an ultra, an enthusiastic fan.

The author has simultaneously created this page in article space and draft space, which may be intended to game the system by preventing draftifying the article. It doesn't prevent nominating the article for deletion as not meeting either musical notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "musical notability"? Ericdoa is an artist that has been featured in prominent publications such as Rolling Stone, Complex, and others, So I don't know where the " satisfy musical notability or general notability" came from. Also, I'm not attempting to "game the system." someone will undoubtedly checked to see whether the article has been generate before which is a no brainer. Before the actual article, I wrote a draft. So your argument that I'm trying to manipulate the system isn't valid. Plus, the reason why I did that was because the other version of the article was deleted and every time i write an article without submitting it gets nominated for deletion unlike my other article I submit. But, I just was thinking about it and knew it could be nominated for deletion no matter what so I just put the article in the article space. Gameforall (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a review of the sources, none appear reliable or go into significant in-depth coverage, and many are passing mentions in a list of artists. Additionally, interviews with subject do not establish notability, per WP: GNG. Reads like WP:ADMASQ and is certainly promotional in nature. The workarounds to ensure its status call into question WP:NPOV and WP:COI. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how do people get prove their claim with sources about people real life stories without a major source interviewing them? Gameforall (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
get prove for their claim* Gameforall (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - - It is obvious that you aren’t clear in how notability is established on Wikipedia. Please review WP:GNG. Your sources should be independent, which means not from the subject or affiliated parties. Your sources should be reliable; not blogs, press releases, or other promotional content. And your sources should cover the subject in-depth, not solely mentions or listings in a prominent publication. Direct me to where you have sufficiently satisfied this (3 sources would be a good start) and I will happily change my decision. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      One thing I notice that every article I create one person aims for the article to be taken down. Tell me why Midwxst or Kashdami Wikipedia articles isnt taken down and those articles barely even have sources that are independent and there are interviews with subjects as sources The same goes to a lot of Wikipedia pages. But its my pages I create people want to take down. Nice. Gameforall (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also most of the sources on the pages that are in the articles are press release, blogs, videos, Itunes/apple music links so why @Robert McClenon , @NiklausGerard , other admin and users on my neck on the articles I create. If you dont do nothing on other articles that have the same problem why come from mine makes no sense. Like I said plenty of times admins and users always pick and choose on this site. Gameforall (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And why did you include the disclaimer that the piece might be done for an undisclosed fee? You can't make a claim without proof, as I know you've seen in the judicial system and in real-life situations. Gameforall (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That template is used when the article in question MAY have been edited for pay and not openly disclosed. It is appropriate given the tone of the article, the information we have presently and the subject in question. Please review the guidelines on the template’s page for more clarity. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to User:Gameforall:
- Are you saying that most of your sources are "press release, blogs, videos", or that other articles have mostly press releases, blogs, videos?
- See Other Stuff Exists. You can nominate the other stuff for deletion.
- You have a right to create articles in article space, or to create drafts in draft space. Why did you create Ericdoa in both article space and draft space, if not to game the system?
  - If you create a draft that isn't ready for article space, it will be declined, and you can work on it.
  - If you create an article that isn't ready for article space, it may be either nominated for deletion or pushed into draft space, where you can work on it.
  - If you create a draft and an article that aren't ready for article space, we have no choice but to nominate it for deletion from article space.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the other articles. And also you try to aim for my article for what. I showed you examples of articles that dont "satisfy musical notability or general notability" as you seem to claim in my article. I know you saw those articles I showed you and left it alone but my article I create should be nominated for deletion. It doesn't make sense at all. This just proves my point you guys pick and choose Gameforall (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been digging around for references to this artist, and I'm finding a lot of coverage, honestly - Rolling Stone, NME, Paper Magazine, Alternative Press, Vice and a couple others. Having said that, if we have a draft underway someplace, then that might be the place to work from. @Gameforall: - may I suggest a course of action, which is to request a voluntary deletion of the article, and then to work on the draft, with assistance from other editors, to get valid sources and a much less promotional tone in place before moving it forward to mainspace again? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tony Fox Would you mind linking them? As I stated previously, if there are sources that satisfy the aforementioned notability standards I would be happy to recant. I haven’t found any and don’t believe they exist in the article either. Of the publications you listed, are you certain they are in-depth coverage, per WP:SIGCOV? Lastly, I can’t believe I have to say this but this wasn’t some personal attack or war on anyone, and this marks my first encounter with the subject or author. I am just doing my part in maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity. @Gameforall I would be happy to help you with the articles you would like to publish within the standards of the mainspace. NiklausGerard (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @NiklausGerard: No, they're not necessarily in the article, but the ones I've found are definitely indicative of a notable artist.
  - Vice article on hyperpop where he and Glaive (musician) are interviewed as representative of the Hyperpop scene.
  - Big profile here in The Line of Best Fit.
  - Interview feature in NME.
  - Big interview in Alternative Press (magazine) written by the mag's former editor-in-chief. (And I'm going to note that according to WP:GNG interviews are not automatically disqualified as sources - note the ongoing discussion on the GNG talk page. These are conducted by staff writers or freelancers, not marketing departments.)
  I think those may provide a fair bit towards notability here - when Vice, NME and AltPress give someone that kind of space, it says a lot. I think I can also find some mentions and discussion/reviews of his latest couple of singles, as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  One more I just stumbled across, including this piece from Complex where he's interviewed as what they call a "foundational figure of the digicore scene." Tony Fox (arf!) 05:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  (just another note here that it looks like some of these were already actually in the article at some point. I swear I looked at them and they weren't. Anyhow, these are all very good to me. I think the article needs a good rewrite to really amplify the sourcing though.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a rewrite of the article to make it more neutral and work on the sourcing. I feel that it's now well established and shows notability. Thus, count me as a Keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance for your contribute into keeping the Wikipedia page up Tony Fox. Also, thanks for helping out redoing the article. Your edits to the Wikipedia article are far superior to mine, thus I commend you for doing so. Gameforall (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to help. Just need to wait for the process to wrap up here now. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Tony_Fox's edits
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although Gameforall has had a poor behavior of taking articles that should be reviewed first in draftspace and creating copies of them in articlespace (which was the same issue that led to the IShowSpeed deletion a few weeks ago), I believe in this case they were in the right. Ericdoa seems to pass notability guidelines per Gameforall and Tony Fox's edits. Not only were the sources they found strong enough to pass WP:NMUSIC, but there were already some decent enough sources in the article as well. Looking at the revision before Robert nominated it for deletion, literally the first reference in the article was a Pitchfork review of one of his EPs which included details on his personal life and background. The only other legitimate concern was the idea of interviews being non-independent per WP:Interviews, but just because a source contains some quotes from the subject itself doesn't automatically mean it should count as a primary source. Of course when an article is written directly about a person, they're going to include some material straight from them in order to draw material to write about; it's pretty hard to write an piece about a person's life and occupation without including some primary source material from them anyways, unless they were involved in some breaking news or controversy. But anyway, Gameforall here was mostly justified in moving the article to mainspace and in their responses.

On an unrelated note, I honestly think there needs to be some new speedy deletion policy where an article created in mainspace from an existing draft should automatically be deleted or merged. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think my job here is to ignore the history, avoid speculating on good or bad faith process, ignore how the article look at any point in time other than now and with that lens, this article seems notable to me, several reliable sources writing about them. CT55555 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 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 appears clear that there is material on which to improve the article because the topic has been covered in a range of sources. If folks would prefer to work on this in draft space, I'm happy to move it, but I see no policy based reason to move it. Star Mississippi 14:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge as a service[edit]

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

As it stands, it should be immediately apparent from a cursory inspection that this isn't an article. It is an essay. It is Original research. Almost none of it is properly cited to any source. The only sources directly discussing the subject appear to be primary - reports from a conference - which do nothing to demonstrate notability as an independent topic. Other sources cited clearly pre-date the topic, so cannot be discussing it. And as far as I have been able to determine from what few other sources that aren't pure marketing-speak I have been able to locate, 'Knowledge as a service' in as much as it represents anything at all beyond said marketing-speak, consists of the output from knowledge graphs, delivered via the internet. We don't need articles on new combinations of old words used to describe things that already exist, combined in order to make them sound new. If there was anything of merit in this essay that could be merged to the knowledge graphs article, that might be worth considering, but since there isn't, it should simply be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a service to readers who deserve better than impenetrable marketroid babble. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maaaybe redirect to Data as a Service, which at least has MORE sources, even if it still reads like marketing babble. My first thought was Content as a Service, based on the title, but it turns out that article is just as bad as this one. PianoDan (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, do not redirect. None of the claims in the lead are supported by sources; the 'Overview' section gestures at the ISWC '19 conference, but no abstracts in that conference actually use this term. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Lyu, M.; Li, X.; Chen, C.H. (2022). "Achieving Knowledge-as-a-Service in IIoT-driven smart manufacturing: A crowdsourcing-based continuous enrichment method for Industrial Knowledge Graph" (PDF). Advanced Engineering Informatics. 51. Elsevier: 101494.
^ Lin, H.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, J.; Bai, B.; Xu, Z.; Lukasiewicz, T. (2022). "Toward Knowledge as a Service (KaaS): Predicting Popularity of Knowledge Services Leveraging Graph Neural Networks" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Services Computing. IEEE.
^ Chrysikos, A.; Ward, R. (2014). "Cloud computing within higher education: Applying knowledge as a service (KaaS)" (PDF). Continued Rise of the Cloud. Springer: 339–362.
^ Aneta Poniszewska-Marańda; Lech Madeyski; Natalia Kryvinska; Stanisław Jarząbek, eds. (2019). Data-Centric Business and Applications; Towards Software Development (Volume 4). Springer International Publishing. p. 179. ISBN 9783030347062.
^ Zettsu, K.; Thalheim, B.; Kidawara, Y.; Karttunen, E.; Jaakkola, H. (2011). "Future Directions of Knowledge Systems Environments for Web 3.0" (PDF). Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XXII. IOS Press: 413–446. ISBN 9781607506898.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are these documents all describing the same thing though? From a quick inspection, I get the distinct impression that they may not be. Instead, it seems that the phrase 'knowledge as a service' is being used in different contexts, to describe very different concepts. One refers smart manufacturing, another to crowdsourcing, another to cloud computing and so on. And these are primary research papers, from a period of over 10 years. If there is an actual well-defined 'knowledge as a service' topic being discussed within academia over this period, one would expect to see overviews of the topic - summaries of the state of research, and at least an attempt to arrive at some sort of clear definition of what 'knowledge as a service' actually is. Articles are about topics, not phrases used in titles of primary research papers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They describe different applications of the same thing.

Source 1 says "the KaaS model aims at leveraging the advanced knowledge management methods to yield value by providing knowledge itself as a service, rather than just providing data or information".
Source 2, to provide context to KaaS, says, "In contrast to traditional knowledge sharing over the Internet, such as static web pages, knowledge-oriented services (or knowledge services in short) typically aim to provide dynamic, context-aware, and customized information delivery".
Source 3, when defining KaaS, says, "Knowledge services are essential infrastructure and key components of the knowledge society, which can be implemented as an IT enabled process that organises knowledge and transforms it into real value".
Source 4 says, "The objective of KaaS approach is twofold. First it aims to develop an architecture of knowledge-based platform using cloud computing paradigms focused on the processing of large amount of data (big data approach). Second, it aims to design an architecture of intelligent platform using cloud cognitive services in the context of application in processes of all DIKW levels of knowledge management’s pyramid (machine learning approach)".
Source 5, referring to a specific KaaS model, says, "the knowledge service provider acts as an intermediary between the input knowledge and the query responses of the customer, thus creating a context-sensitive environment for knowledge transfer".

They fact that the sources cover a large time period is a good thing, it implies a lasting notability. The sources contain overviews of the topic, and "summaries of the state of research" are not required to demonstrate notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they are 'describing different applications of the same thing', what is the 'thing'? How, from those sources, are we supposed to create an article telling readers what 'knowledge as a service' is? We already have an essay doing that: original research telling us what the article creator thinks it is. Using the sources you cite to synthesise our own definition of 'knowledge as a service' would put us back where we started. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is some unsourced rubbish in there but nothing that can't be fixed through the normal editing process. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'normal editing process' isn't supposed to involves synthesis. Articles need sources which actually tell us what the subject is. Heck, the first sentence of an article lede needs to tell us what the subject is. "Knowledge as a Service is an X..." needs 'X' defined somewhere. Or at least described in a consistent enough manner that we can summarise what sources say about X, rather than merely stating that 'X' is something or other you get via the internet, referred to in several sources. What would you propose should be the first sentence of the lede, and which sources would you base it around? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - SailingInABathTub's discussion looks promising to me but falls short of persuausive. The third source of the five sources provided builds on a 2010 source with 30 semschol citations A model of knowledge management system for facilitating knowledge as a service (KaaS) in cloud computing environment, which provides an indirect definition, which is that it is a service that provides the same kind of content as a knowledge management system, a well-defined term in library and information science.

Having said that, while I could reconstruct a serviceable definition from this source, it's not clear to me that this would clearly be talking about the same thing as this article, nor does SailingInABathTub's five excerpts seem to securely anchor the meaning of the term. I agree with AndyTheGrump's comment that "The 'normal editing process' isn't supposed to involves synthesis": we can't expect a good result from normal editing if the article isn't unambiguously about a particular thing. Could SailingInABathTub provide a characterisation of the topic that is suitable for the lead section? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as requested by AndyTheGrump and Charles Stewart, I have made a first pass at revising the lede. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cite a 2005 paper as your source. One which states that the authors "introduce and explore a new computing paradigm we call knowledge as a service". The authors are absolutely explicit in this. They are introducing a neologism. One describing a particular 'paradigm' (see fig 1.) which involves extracting data from multiple 'data owners', running it through a 'knowledge extractor' and 'knowledge server', which sends it on to 'knowledge consumers'. A perfectly good model for something, certainly, but no evidence whatsoever that this specific 2005 neologism is what is being described in the sources you cited in your post above. We already know that the phrase 'knowledge as a service' has been used in academic papers to describe various differing concepts and applications. All your new lede does is take one more, and assert that its definition is the valid one. This is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They are introducing a neologism". What is your point? The phrase may have been introduced in 2005 but it has clearly caught on. The other sources that I have added to the article all describe the exact same concept. There is no original research, as everything described in the lede can be found in the sources. You assert that there are multiple definitions of knowledge as a service, but I am yet to see your sources supporting this claim ... SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent notability of a topic has to be demonstrated through sources. Not disproven through sources. The onus is on you. So how about you starting by providing a citation for your claim that the sources you have provided "all describe the exact same concept". It seems obvious enough to me that they don't. Not without stretching 'exact same' to include anything involving sending data over the internet, and calling it 'knowledge'. That isn't a topic, it is jargon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied that I have already demonstrated notability. I will await the contributions of other editors. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied with this. I've made a small change to SailingInABathTub's definition to make clearer the role that knowledge models play in this 2005 definition. Note that this source has over 50 gschol cites including 39 with that term and two recent citing articles with over 100 gschol cites. For some reason I can't find it on Semantic Scholar, whose count I usually prefer since it allows much less junk in its count, but plainly there are a reasonable number of quality citations of the article.
We don't need all the sources to agree; we just need a coherent lead that (i) determines a topic that has sufficient coverage to write an article and (ii) does so clearly enough that editors can grasp clearly what the article is about. That wasn't the case when the article came to AfD but I think it shuld be now. In fact, there is an important difference between the 2005 article SailingInABathTub provided and the 2010 one I did: the 2005 article anchors knowledge in computational knowledge models, while the 2010 article anchors it in the human judgement-based models found in knowledge management. But this is a distinction that we can easily explain to readers and editors in the lead without threatening the coherence of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a substantial literature here and now we have a lead that is anchored in a source, I think we can do a decent job of covering it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To reassess after the edits made during the AFD and the new sources mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, my "delete" opinion remains unchanged. I don't think the new sources mentioned above establish that there is a single, well-defined concept here; stitching them together feels like WP:SYNTH. We write articles about what things are, not what they're called (WP:NOTDICT). XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are still self-evident problems with synthesis. We now have a lede citing a 2005 source for a definition, supporting text in the body which asserts KaaS is a new type of "...as a Service" offerings that has been discussed with only nascent examples demonstrated in recent computer (2019) science conferences.... How can something defined in 2005 be 'nascent' in 2019? If the definition in the lede is valid, the (almost entirely unsourced/blatant synthesis) body text is either just plain wrong, or describing something else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be heading towards delete to me, but let's give this one more chance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While reflection on the sources has persuaded me that there is a coherent subject here that we can document without violating our policies against creating neologisms or going beyond what the sources say per SYNTH, the current state of the article provides a definition that does not clearly cover all the sources the article cites, and so I am sympathetic to the skeptical delete rationale of XOR'easter. I asked SailingInABathTub to provide some viable well-sourced lead, and while I saw the problem with the new lead not covering all the sources as is, I regarded having a particular, sourced definition meant that the article would not have the malign effect, currently seen seen in a published 'scholarly' article that cites Wikipedia, of passing off an incoherent concept as KaaS. For me, this moves the article from the category of 'TNT-worthy misinformation' to 'problematic article that can be fixed with normal editing'. There's an endpoint here: revising the lead so that it documents, with adequate sourcing but without violating SYNTH, a broader concept that does either cover all the sources cited or identifies some of the sources as talking about something else. I have some expertise in the field - one of my post-doc posts was in a chair of 'Knowledge Representation and Reasoning' and I've listened to a good number of talks and refereed a good number of articles on knowledge models - and I'm quite confident that the issues are fixable, but I do not expect to have time before the AfD is closed. I'd like the delete voters to consider either withdrawing their delete vote or changing to 'draftify', which is an ATD outcome that puts the article out of mainspace, allowing it to be incubated until it is clearly acceptable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a citation for a source that provides a clear definition of what 'knowledge as a service' is? One which encompasses all significant usage of the term, without being so broad as to lack defined boundaries? Because otherwise, it seems to me that all we are liable to achieve is to go through another round of 'definition by synthesis'. I don't think it is reasonable to draftify without evidence that an article meeting Wikipedia policy can be later created. That needs evidence (rather than just assurances) that there really is a clear topic to create an article on, rather than buzzwords being applied to concepts only linked through the vaguest of commonality, already covered in other articles.

As is normally the case, a decision to 'delete' doesn't actually preclude the creation of a new article at a later date, if proper sourcing can be found to demonstrate that there is a coherent single topic, and accordingly I still propose that this article should be deleted, given the failure of edits which have taken place since the AfD started to solve the fundamental issues with the original essay-like state. If anything, they may have made things harder, since they seem to have demonstrated just how disparately the term seems to have been used. Draftifying an article that fails to demonstrate that topic-notability can be met without engaging in synthesis isn't normal procedure, and I really can't see why an exception need be made here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to make another effort to quote the source in the lead chapter and verse in the course of this AfD. The above argument is the case I have time to make.

Draftification is not one of the 'big three' ATDs, but it has its place and experienced closers will recognise when a good case for draftification has been made. Consider WP:NOT bureaucracy: if the article is closed as delete, I will ask the closing admin to draftify; if the admin refuses (some have a policy of not doing this), I will go to WP:REFUND. If that fails as well, I will go to DRV.

Hypothetical two-part question: if this did come up at DRV, would you participate in the DRV? If so, what would your argument be? — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably depend on the closing statement and decision. And on what had already been said at the review. I would note however that DRV isn't intended to be a rerun of an AfD discussion.

Meanwhile, if you want to preserve the article for yourself as a basis for later work, there is nothing preventing you from making a local copy on your own PC. Or at a minimum, at least making a copy of the sources cited, since I think we are all agreed that the article as it stands doesn't properly conform to policy, and needs substantial rewriting to do so. A rewrite starting from scratch from sources which accurately describe the scope of the topic (if such sources can be found) might seem to be the best way to achieve clarity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I would only go to DRV if draftification was blocked as an option. I prefer to work collaboratively on rescuing articles, in draft space, using the WP:AFCH tools where appropriate. I see no case made for blocking this route. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely a "there" there. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick Google Scholar search shows that this concept definitely meets GNG (t · c) buidhe 09:43, 12 May 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 Elon Musk#In popular culture. Consensus is this is not appropriate for a standalone. If someone wants to create and change target to Filmography, that can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk in popular culture[edit]

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

This is a major mess, if rather short. Titled "in popular culture", the claim that "Elon Musk has influenced or been referenced in many works of popular culture." is unreferenced, and what follows is a mish mash or trivia. Musk appears in film x, made guest appearance in tv show y, voiced character z, was in talk show a, youtube video b... Nothing here even shows he has been influential on popcultue more than any midly successful celebrity, it's all based on primary/passing mentions (OR!), plus totally weird stuff like "In 2021, Musk coauthored a peer-reviewed scientific paper on COVID-19 together with, among others, Pardis Sabeti.[24] Since Sabeti has an Erdős number of 3,[25] Musk has an Erdős number of 4.[26] Given his Bacon number of 2, Musk consequently has an Erdős–Bacon number of 6." What is this even about? Or "In December 2021, the International College of Businessry and Managering published the first in a series of scholarly articles performing a detailed analysis of Musk's leadership strategies[29] likening them to Art of War by Sun Tzu." How's this even relevant? Even if we allowed OR, this is a pretty poorly done piece. I don't think this mess even fails WP:NOTTVTROPES, it's just a chaotic listing of his media appearances and few references. But for people who would dlik a more policy-sound argument: this fails WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, an WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR due to failure of showing that this topic is subject to in-depth, reliable coverage. A redirect to Elon_Musk#In_popular_culture may be fine, as that section does contain a single refenced sentence about him being popular in China. If it is expanded and grows, it may be split off, but this subarticle warrants nothing but WP:TNT treatment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Popular culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elon Musk#In popular culture as a WP:ATD while keeping the most major pertinent info. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Any thoughts on what here is mergeable? The content is referenced, but is any of it relevant? We risk the usual degeneration of this (seen even in the first para on Elon Musk's main bio) of "ah, in pop culture means we get to list all the works which mention him or portray him, right"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a Filmography section. Most of these appearances are verifiable, but there's not much to say other than they happened. Not to say the subject of this article is an actor, but he has cameo appearances that are similar enough to one. That's how we typically cover this type of topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. A filmography section of a Foo topic can list their appearances in such media, without running into OR claims that they constitute some form of special impact on popculture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and let disputes over what fits be settled internally. Or go ask Elon what he wants. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something like "Elon Musk filmography" to his many appearances in film, television, documentaries, even if they are brief they attract much media coverage. Musk's personal biography is already too long to have this kind of infomation. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle Filmography is fine, but what about the parts that mention his appearance in YouTube videos or in books...? Is Elon Musk in media an encyclopedic topic, per WP:GNG? I have major doubts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 11 May 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 but continue cleanup. Article has been improved and there are sources on which to continue that. The work done here and sources indentified counter many of the deletes. As to the draftification during this AfD, if someone prefers to work on it there and then move it back, there's no issue but policy doesn't require it be removed from mainspace Star Mississippi 13:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Rushmore in popular culture[edit]

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

Another mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft, trimmed from the Mount_Rushmore#In_popular_culture. It has a bit of prose, but due to lack of refs, it's even worse than the list (more obvious OR). Like all similar articles, fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR, WP:V. While it is not impossible a proper article could be written on this topic, WP:TNT applies to the current OR list of trivia ("In the animated sitcom South Park, there is a picture of Eric Cartman and his mother Liane in the Mount Rushmore in his living room."). That's what TV Tropes is for, folks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why not the Visual arts list. These are sculptures! I've already complained above this on another nom. No, I won't do it myself - YOU do it please! Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at worst, move to draft. This zero-effort canned nomination acknowledges that there is prose (though it largely ignores the presence of sources), and acknowledges that "a proper article could be written on this topic", but shows no sign whatsoever of having actually looked at the article. There is a failure of WP:BEFORE. The nom threw a notability tag and a sources tag on it and then immediately nominated for deletion, with no opportunity for improvement to address the tags, which suggests insincerity in the motivation for tagging deficiencies in the first place. If everything that was unsourced was removed from the article, which would take about five minutes, there would still be an article with two dozen sources, but the nom clearly didn't take a close enough look to realize this. Therefore WP:TNT is invoked when the appropriate policy here is WP:NOTCLEANUP. BD2412 T 12:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Literally two minutes of searching yielded a Time Magazine article, See Mount Rushmore's Most Memorable Moments at the Movies, and other sources like "Mount Rushmore on the Big Screen" and Mount Rushmore: Myths, Legends, and Facts. BD2412 T 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  So what? The fact that there are possible sources doesn't mean this mess is rescuable. And two minute search means you didn't even read them, so you are not even saying there are sources, it's just a WP:GOOGLETEST of "I found some sources that sound like maybe they are relevant". Let's assume they are. Again, WP:TNT applies, with no prejudice to anyone rewriting this from scratch now or later. After all, we are not discussing WP:SALTing this, just blowing it up as unredeemable failure of WP:IPC and like, in other words, as an unencyclopedic list of trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I did and I explained it all above. If we remove all unsourced content, we just have a smaller mess that still merits TNT. The only "cleanup" applicable here would be a total rewrite, which is just a delete and rewrite but with preserving history for technical reasons of this happening during, not after, AfD. You present no arguments for keeping other than "since the topic may be notable, we should keep it just in case and oh, sure, maybe rewrite". That's a weak WP:ITSNOTABLE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then withdraw your nom and give it a week for your tags to be addressed, and if it's still in poor shape, renominate it. Don't throw a bunch of tags on an article requesting improvements if you have no intention of allowing for improvements. BD2412 T 13:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a novel argument. AfD can and usually lasts over a week. I've seen similar article rewritten during that period (I've even done it myself). But I've never seen an article rewritten after it was just tagged. (Ok, maybe it happens once in a blue moon, it's a big project). Anyway, if you want to rewrite it, I am sure we can put this nomination on hold and revisit in a week or two. Or if you need time, we can just draftify this for you. But if you don't feel like rewriting it, and just hope someone will do it, then an AfD has a much better chance of attracting someone than tags. Particularly as IMHO the existing content is not rescuable, so it should not remain in mainspace. Hence the AfD, and not just tags. If I thought this is rescuable, I'd just tag it and I wouldn't nominate this. But again, the only way to rescue this is to blank 99% of this (except the lead and categories) and write something from scratch. A few interwiki links may reappear at the end of such a process, I guess, but it's a deletion. Our only choice is whether it will be SOFT (if someone rewrites it during AfD) or HARD (if they don't). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Upon further review, I am surprised at how much cruft has built up here, and will summarily move this to draft for rewriting. BD2412 T 22:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no independent sources to write a suitable article about this topic, as per WP:OR and WP:GNG. There is nothing to WP:PRESERVE from the current version of the article. Even the Time Magazine source is a compilation of primary material without comment, which (at best) could be added as a single sentence to the main article. There is no time limit on these things, and someone is welcome to write a new article that does meet our guidelines. But I would strongly discourage using anything from the old article, as there isn't a single appropriate source in the entire thing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just an unsourced laundry list with nothing worth preserving and no good sources in sight. WP:NOTTVTROPES is in full force here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was draftified before this AFD discussion was closed. I have returned it to main space. Please do not take action on this article until an uninvolved administrator or editor has closed this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liz: The move to draft space is orthogonal to the discussion, and can be done irrespective of the outcome of this discussion. ~~As I have de facto withdrawn my "keep" vote, I am not seeing any opinion here that would justify keeping this in mainspace at this point.~~ The encyclopdia is not particularly served by deferral to bureaucracy on this point. BD2412 T 01:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't see returning this article to main space as a bureaucratic move. This has become a lengthy discussion that has grown since the article was moved to Draft space and back so obviously there are editors who want to weigh in on this discussion. Moving a page to Draft space effectively closes off a discussion prematurely. I have no probably with AFDs closing to "Draftifying" articles and have done this myself several times, but it shouldn't be a move to derail an active discussion that is going on. It might be the consensus decision to move this article to Draft space but a move, after the discussion was been opened and editors have already shared their opinions, was done prematurely. I have returned articles involved in AFDs from Draft space to main space multiple times in the past but it is usually done by new editors who are trying to bypass a deletion discussion. This situation, however, was different from those incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion would have continued either way; the content in question was still viewable. However, the restoration to mainspace did prompt me to substantially rewrite the article immediately, rather than on the more leisurely schedule of developing a draft, which in turn appears to have turned the discussion around. BD2412 T 06:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common sense. Picking off long-standing and well-worked on popular culture pages seems to be a "thing" lately. Many editors like and care for these pages. Each page gone is a cultural loss for Wikipedia, and I wish closers would take some control of this process. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate User:BD2412 starting a rewrite; the current version is an improvement over the mess I nominated ([19]), but I am afraid it still needs a lot of cutting down to size (much of the content is still unreferenced or irrelevant). I'd offer to help, but if I, the nom, start removing major chunks it could be bad practice, so I will hold off for now unless BD2412 explicitly gives me permission to do so - instead, I'll just tag stuff with inline tamplates (so any template bombing you see in article, it's probably recent and on me). Currently if this was to be closed I am fine with draftification, but who knows, maybe in a few days this will be improved sufficiently for me to withdraw this nom (which would be a win for everyone).Having just spend half an hour reading and tagging the article, I'll note that it contains three rescuable assertions of notability. First, sadly, missing page, is in the lead: "Because of its fame as a monument, Mount Rushmore in South Dakota has appeared frequently in works of fiction". Much better is the short but properly referenced paragraph "Popularity in media". Then there is this sentence which seems confirmed by the following quote to a RS: "The large carved faces of the monument have made it a target for parodies and other symbolic alterations of its appearance in media. ". Other than that, however, content is either unreferenced, referenced to primary souces (and thus fitting in the bad style of listing all trivial appearances of the topic, whether in prose or in list). Oh, and we have a lenghty, half-referenced, and likely too detailed (undue) section about filming of the scenes of In North by Northwest on the location - which is sadly off topic, as it is not abou MR in popculture, bout about MR role in that one particular movie. That entire section should be probably moved to the article about the movie, with maybe a sentnece summarizing this remaining here, if a all (since, again, this is just a lenghty 'MR appeared in Media X' entry that does not seem to discuss popular culture at a topic). Anyway, the good news is that sources now added/present do suffice to show this is a notable topic, the only issue is 99% of the content had to go (and still about 95% of what remains should be blanked/moved). PPS. All things considered, given how little usable content IMHO we have, a merge of those few sentences about popculture to MR article and redirecting this there for now may be best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a few days yet before this discussion closes. I have some philosophical disagreements with the proposed removals. I would suggest that everything currently in the article is citable, it just hasn't yet been addressed. While I agree that popular culture articles should not be a grab bag of every instance of the subject appearing in some media, it is appropriate to have examples of specific trends of uses (Mount Rushmore hiding a secret base or the like; a fifth face being added to the monument; the monument being defaced or destroyed), and there are some citations to these instances that are not primary sources. Likewise, the appearance of the monumnent on coins and flags, in particular, is culturally significant. As for the North by Northwest content, I think you underestimate the cultural significance of this depiction, which was itself subject to later parodies in other works. If you remove content from the article, please copy it to the talk page where it can be subject to further discussion. However, I think I have already removed everything egregious. BD2412 T 19:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412 Regarding "there are some citations to these instances that are not primary sources", if the discussion meets WP:SIGCOV then I am fine keeping it. As for importance of things like coins, stamps, whatever, it's OR until we have sources that say so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was going to protest that the coins themselves are the primary source, and the government website listing them is therefore secondary, but it is trivially easy to find books in print discussing the coins, sometimes at absurd length. BD2412 T 18:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Books on coins or books on the topic of the article under discussion, Mount Rushmore in popular culture? (Are coins "popular culture"?) After all, we are supposed cover each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject per WP:PROPORTION. That means we have to base the article on sources on the topic of the article, namely Mount Rushmore in popular culture. TompaDompa (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no requirement that every Wikipedia article be referenced solely to sources covering only that topic, and that topic as a whole. If that were the case, dozens of GA and FA articles would have to go. However, bearing in mind that a book chapter is an independent unit for source evaluation, yes, these chapters are entirely about coins commemorating Mount Rushmore. BD2412 T 19:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No one said "solely" or "as a whole", but there is a difference between a source on coins discussing Mount Rushmore and a source on Mount Rushmore discussing coins. The latter is appropriate for determining the proper weight for coins commemorating Mount Rushmore in an article about Mount Rushmore in popular culture assuming that coins are actually "popular culture" (and in the section Mount Rushmore#Legacy and commemoration if they are not), whereas the former isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think we need a source on Mount Rushmore itself to determine whether commemorative coins are part of popular culture. In any case, they are mentioned in a single line in an article much more squarely focused on iconic appearances of the monument in film and television. Even if it is an edge case, it is not undue, relative to the whole weight of the article. BD2412 T 21:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering how poorly sourced the rest of the article is (and thus how large a proportion this would take up if the offending content were removed), that this is already included at Mount Rushmore#Legacy and commemoration, and that there do not seem to be any sources on the topic of Mount Rushmore in popular culture that cover this aspect (at least none yet located/presented), I think the inclusion here is highly dubious from a WP:PROPORTION perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Indeed, first, coins and stamps are IMHO not pop culture but 'commemoration' stuff, so this should be moved there. I think it's ok to mention their existence using PRIMARY in a commemoration section, but it should be a brief mention. Anything more would be UNDUE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It occurs to me that this is not really a point relevant to this discussion. Whether the article is kept or deleted does not hinge on this point, and the question of whether commemorative coins are an element of popular culture can better be discussed on the article's talk page. BD2412 T 19:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards deletion. This is a poorly-sourced TV Tropes-style article, not a proper encyclopaedic article on the topic Mount Rushmore in popular culture. I would rewrite it to fix that issue as I have done with several similar articles (see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination)), but I don't really see the sources to do that with, either here or in the article itself. These three [20][21][22] linked above are really not the kind of quality sources we want to use as a basis for a stand-alone article like this, nor are these [23][24] which are cited in the article itself (though without links). I thought I had found the solution when I discovered that Mount Rushmore has an entry in the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, but as it turns out the entry is, I guess one could say, Mount Rushmore as popular culture (its history, what it represents to different groups of people, and so on) rather than Mount Rushmore in popular culture (appearances in fiction and whatnot).
The underlying problem is that this was initially written as a TV Tropes-style article based on what the editors who wrote the article back then expected an article on Mount Rushmore in popular culture to contain, with rather scant sourcing and a fair amount of WP:ANALYSIS that did not derive from the sources but from the editors. That is entirely appropriate over at TV Tropes, but it's not how to write a proper Wikipedia article. It also makes salvaging the article in circumstances like these rather difficult, because merely locating sources that verify the existing text inevitably ends up reproducing and compounding editorial biases. What's more, what often happens when somebody does try to salvage an article like this by locating sources is that they find sources for the examples, rather than the analysis. The analysis is of course what's actually important for articles like this, as the essay WP:CARGO notes: Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. [...] What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.) The best way to avoid this (and in my view, the proper way of writing articles like this) is to survey the literature on the topic first and write the article based on that; that's how we make sure that we give weight to each aspect in WP:PROPORTION its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. In other words, for this to become a proper article, it would need to be rewritten pretty much from scratch as Piotrus correctly pointed out above.
Ultimately, I find the case for a stand-alone article very weak. This does not appear to be a topic that has been the subject of in-depth coverage by WP:Reliable secondary/tertiary sources (or at least none that have yet been located). If all the poorly sourced and otherwise tangential/trivial (for instance, some of the North by Northwest stuff is basically in WP:OFFTOPIC/WP:COATRACK territory due to how much weight is given to WP:MINORASPECTS) content were removed, there would be very little quality content left, which would to my eye not merit a stand-alone article. Likewise, I don't see that there is really anything worth merging—I'm not particularly a fan of "in popular culture" sections, but we could always include a short sentence like "The monument has appeared in several films including North by Northwest and National Treasure: Book of Secrets" in the Mount Rushmore#Legacy and commemoration section of the main article and more-or-less be done with it. I can't say I see the point of turning this into a draft, based on my observations above about how to write a proper article like this—additional sources would need to be located to write a decent article on this topic. TompaDompa (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa I think content relevant to Foo as pop culture is relevant to 'in pop culture' too. So that's a good source for User:BD2412 to check if they haven't. But I'd like to hear them address the OFFTOPIC/COATRACK/MINORASPECTS issue which I raised as well (particularly related to the North by Northwest section)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the content on the appearance in North by Northwest, I would say that I have improved this section a great deal from the time of the nomination, both in removing excess details and in providing additional quotes and sources for the cultural signficance of that appearance of the monument. I don't have access, that I am aware of to the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, but I did find and add a reference to Gladys L. Knight's Pop Culture Places: An Encyclopedia of Places in American Popular Culture (2014), which has an entry for Mount Rushmore including a paragraph section on "Images in Popular Culture", which specifically calls out its appearance in North by Northwest. BD2412 T 16:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link. TompaDompa (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 Courtesy link 2. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, that much is obvious. The rest is noise. Could be merged, but doesn't need to. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reviewing the work being done by BD2412 to fix the issues, which makes me believe this article can be salvaged. Failing that, this can be moved to Draft space per his request so he can continue his work there. BOZ (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, arguments for deletion are not policy based. Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the several parts identified (mainly by Piotrus) to the main Mount Rushmore article, which could use a solid in the popular culture section. Redirect the rest there. %90 if not more of the content here is trivial or undue.- GizzyCatBella🍁 19:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't look like the article has enough un-referenced material to invalidate the whole thing. I don't agree that WP:TNT should be used here, this article is improvable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 21:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, nom is another barrage of policies that don't apply. Could be merged, but better not too. I hope this crusade will be over soon. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the article has been substantially improved since the nom. BD2412 T 01:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thanks! The nomination has not improved though. Despite a request, he has still not added it to the most obvious sorting list, for visual arts. That's becoming a pattern with these noms - far too many policies cited, and not enough sorting lists. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 12 May 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NordLayer[edit]

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

Unambiguos advertisement of the product of a non-notable company. Nowhere meets WP:GNG. Lacking WP:SIGCOV. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United States of America. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NordVPN: The existing paragraph under NordVPN#History provides adequate coverage of NordVPN Teams / NordLayer. Redirecting as an WP:ATD retains the history should NordLayer ever become notable in itself. AllyD (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Seems a notable service as it has received a lot of coverage during COVID-19 pandemic (the rise correlates with the rise of remote work). In addition, some notable publications like PCMag and TechRadar have published detailed reviews about this ([25], [26]). ZDNet has covered it to a reasonable extent [27]. Alex Windels (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would lean keep here. I think sources are enough here for us to write a decent neutral article. The tone of the current version should be addressed. I would also like to note that about 80 percent of the coverage about the topic is under the title "NordVPN Teams". Few books have briefly discussed it too. Cheers, 27.33.164.186 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews in reliable sources. Meets GNG. -- Mike 🗩 17:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a product/service so WP:NCORP applies. There are sufficient in-depth third party reviews to meet the criteria for establishing notability, passes NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 8 May 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 Bull and terrier. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bull-type terriers[edit]

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

Redundant - not a distinct breed; rather it is simply another term for bull and terrier crosses. We have a much more detailed historic article titled Bull and terrier, and we also have articles on each of the 6 distinct modern breeds that share the same ancestry as the bull and terrier or bull-type terrier hybrids Atsme 💬 📧 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Atsme 💬 📧 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there some article that contains a list of these crosses? That would seem to be useful information; if that exists, redirect there. Otherwise I'd say keep this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Elmidae, I can see where a redirect might prove helpful, but not a merge. Please see Bull and terrier#Descendants which is far more informative and accurate than this starter article, which was created in 2019, some 13 years after Bull and terrier, which was created in 2006. There is some misinformation in this article, so a merge into Bull and terrier is not advisable. For example, modern purebred dogs, mixed breeds and dog types do exist, but we don't have dog sub-types in the same way that we have subspecies or subtypes in evolutionary biology. All dogs are descended from the wolf (Canis lupus) and classified as a wolf subspecies, C. lupus familiaris. Also, the FCI citation in the header for "Bull type terriers" is nothing more than a dog show classification. FCI even states in their main activity: Contrary to a widespread idea, the FCI is not a registry and does not issue any pedigree. Official dog breed registries like TKC, AKC, UKC, etc. maintain stud books, historic archives and libraries, require DNA testing in some cases, and have hundreds of recognized purebred dogs classified in groups. All purebred terrier breeds are classified in the Terrier group, including Bull Terriers, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 19:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, there's the list, first sentence after the quote. So just redirect there? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bull and terrier - Elmidae, this AfD was relisted so I've started a new iVote section. Atsme 💬 📧 16:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree that this subject would be more helpful as a redirect. The aforementioned article Bull and terrier#Descendants absolutely is a more comprehensive and accurate as stated prior. I also understand why a merge is inadvisable in this case. It's also prudent to consider the difference between dog sub-types and purebreds. I definitely am in favor of redirect in this case. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as outlined above, seems most suitable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:16, 10 May 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 Glossary of rail transport terms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dual control stand[edit]

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

This subject simply isn't sufficiently notable to justify its own page. The only references here simply support that the locomotives of XYZ company had dual control stands. There's not even a hint of notability. A before search finds results exclusively in locomotive manuals, which are primary sources and do not establish notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this content not be merged somewhere as an alternative to deletion? NemesisAT (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a valid merge topic, a redirect might be in order. But there's nothing sourced to merge. I looked quickly for logical merge targets and couldn't find any. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of rail transport terms.. Djflem (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Stkngjo (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glossary of rail transport terms as ATD and useful addition to that glossary.Djflem (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to merging this to Glossary of rail transport terms. We just need a better source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 5 May 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. Being bold and closing this as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazal Al Majidi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF despite a welter of references. WP:BOMBARD, plus regrettably lengthy and unsubstantiated lists of works. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Egypt. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Netherlands. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not state how the subject is notable. If the originator wants the references reviewed, they should provide not less than three nor more than five key references. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find both arguments above not warranting a deletion. The problem with biographies when it comes to notability is that they are limited in scope (culture, geography). Khazaal Al Majidi is a well-known academic specialized in Ancient Mesopotamia history and ancient mythology and he is widely known in the Arab world as he is the main expert in his field (writing in Arabic). I myself have two of his large books and use them as references. The arguments for deletion concern the poor way the article is written and they are in no way warranting deletion. The article needs to be enhanced instead to keep it in terms of Wiki policies. -- FayssalF - Wiki up® 21:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, I have no issue with the article. It's dry and factual and not WP:PEACOCK in any way. Robert McClenon suggested using the three method. It's a good suggestion. gidonb (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FayssalF this AfD may not be neccessary if a certain editor has not decided to prematurely shift drafts into the mainspace instead of having it being improved with almost no deadline in the draftspace. – robertsky (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable author and researcher with enough reliable sources proving that notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep as the author is a notable academic with ample references. VeritasOM (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 5 May 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 Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Hall (sound engineer)[edit]

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

He fails WP:BIO. Current sourcing is a brief mention in the 1942 Academy Awards nominations list. He did not win. Before search finds no significant coverage. Apparently sound engineers do not generate much coverage. One award nomination does not establish notability. Gab4gab (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me as he would meet WP:CREATIVE#4 (c), "Won significant critical attention" as a Oscar nominee. If not then Redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s per Lugnuts. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must disagree with the previous voter on WP:CREATIVE#4 (c), because one single nomination may not be "significant" enough for Wikipedia's purposes if there is nothing else to say about the individual. With a lot of other John Hall's in the world, I can't find information about this gentleman beyond the fact that he was nominated for an award in 1942. Can we find his date of birth, his hometown, his accomplishments before and after 1942, or anything else? If anyone can find anything in old books I'd be happy to change my vote, but per WP:SPEAKSELF I see no use in an encyclopedic article that says nothing beyond how a man of this name once got an award nomination. Also, his nomination was in 1942, but the article's infobox says his career started in 1949, again indicating how little there is to find about the gentleman. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MoviesandTelevisionFan and WP:ANYBIO, or worst case, redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It causes some confusion when editors claim an article passes a criteria when it clearly does not. One nomination doesn't pass the criteria at Anybio which is looking for several. Beter to say: "It does not pass but I think it should." The case for his work having "won significant critical attention" based on the single Academy Award nomination for Best Visual Effects (sound) is not convincing. I doubt that every Best Visual Effects (sound) nominee receives the significant critical attention criteria 4(c) is looking for. There were 10 nominations in that category in 1941, multiples for some names. In some years there were more than a dozen. I doubt much in-depth coverage is generated for them compared to Best Actress or Best Film. In this case the best reliable coverage identified is his name in the list of nominees. I have no objection to redirecting to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s. Gab4gab (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects#1940s per WP:PRESERVE and Lugnuts. I am not convinced that WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE are met just because of the nomination. If he won, that would be different. Sound engineers don't usually get much coverage regardless of the good work they do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete above, but to prevent the article from ending up in "no consensus" purgatory I can support the suggested redirect as well. That redirect was also suggested as an alternative by the "keep" voters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect we clearly do not have enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 6 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MWI Veterinary Supply[edit]

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

Created as a sanctioned class project, but I am unable to find significant, in depth sourcing to meet WP:CORP. A merger to AmerisourceBergen doesn't appear to be a valid AtD as it would be undue. Star Mississippi 19:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, and Idaho. Star Mississippi 19:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning delete right now, but I'm not going to formally !vote at this time at least. I can abstractly picture how veterinary supply companies could meet our notability guidelines, especially when it comes to agricultural use. At least in my initial search though, I'm not seeing anything standing out where sources really make an obvious case. I wouldn't be surprised if someone did dig up decent sources though, but I'd still expect at best what should be more of a stub article. KoA (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company AmerisourceBergen. Falls short of WP:SIGCOV as per Google search and Google News search. Why undue, Star Mississippi? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 20:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trimton it's my (possibly incorrect) understanding that AB owns a number of smaller organizations. It didn't seem due to add just one, but against it being included there if it fits. Star Mississippi 20:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone's willing to merge it, otherwise it goes into a 2500+ article backlog at Category:Articles to be merged and sits around for years. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Typographic Aficionados[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for the organization and its convention. TypeCon is part of this AfD. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. SL93 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 5 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tylerbrizyy[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources despite the long list of sources used as references. Most of it are links to the subject's work on spotify, apple music, etc. Unable to find usable sources on Google as well. – robertsky (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes: This article was initially a draft that was declined twice for NBIO/NMUSIC issues. It was subsequently moved to mainspace by the author, and moved back to draftspace by myself. A customised note was left on the author's page explaining that the draft may not survive an AfD and dratification is preferrable to have the content developed. The author had then chosen to move the draft back to the mainspace. – robertsky (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just looked at the deleted edits and saw that this article has been deleted several times before, page creator User:Tylerbrizyy was blocked and it was then recreated by sockpuppet User:Markodavidson10. I have some suspicions about new page creator User:David DXL. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz! Do you mind linking to the other article discussions (if there are any)? I'm not seeing them. If this is a continued recreation, I'll add a salting to my !vote. --Kbabej (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only self-published sources available, none of which indicate notability as they could easily have been written by the subject themselves Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is truly abysmal. Not one RS; everything is referenced with listings of his songs. It's clear this is complete promo with no actual notability. Heave ho. --Kbabej (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear promo. Subject fails NMUSIC.-Xclusivzik (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition to the above arguments, I found nothing in a newspaper archive search. Jacona (talk) 00:47, 12 May 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 Bomba Estéreo. Consensus is the sourcing covers her inn relation to the band. History under the redirect should someone want to perform a merge. Star Mississippi 03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Saumet[edit]

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

Was submitted to WP:BLPPROD but as there is a source in the article, it does not qualify. Procedurally moving here for greater input. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, I think. She seems notable, just based on about one minute on google news:

Am I missing something? CT55555 (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have scored out my initial vote. I am currently undecided. Lead singers can be notable outside of the band, if she is or not, will take more time than I've given this so far. CT55555 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I second to CT55555. I have found wide coverage with just a click on Google as:

And many more. I'll be surprised if the page is not expanded with proper citation as a simple Google search gives lots of coverage by Top Class media. --_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please do not try to close the AfD as "keep" on the same day as the AfD was opened, as you did – the discussion should be left open for at least a week, and in any case it is not your decision to close it, an uninvolved administrator will do that. Richard3120 (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happened with accidental mistake. I tender my apology. I immediately retracted when I noticed the close. Hope my undid solved the mistake. Regards _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bomba Estéreo. CT55555 and NeverTry4Me, what you have found are sources about the band, not about Ms. Saumet herself. In fact most of this article simply duplicates the Bomba Estéreo article as a result. See WP:BANDMEMBER: "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability." There is nothing to suggest that Ms. Saumet is individually notable outside of the group. Richard3120 (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding most of the content is about her music, and there is some reliance on primary sources, do any of these sources (which I found from https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Saumet) change your opinion?
Not at all – the first three are about her role within the band, the last one is an announcement of her pregnancy. I have lived in Colombia for over a decade, and this band is very well known there and across Latin America, but Liliana Saumet isn't known for anything outside of Bomba Estéreo. Richard3120 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bomba Estéreo. I have to agree with the above post by Richard3120. The RS's cited are about her in context of the band. Even her pregnancy announcement takes care to identity her as the singer in Bomba Estereo, lest anyone be uncertain who she is. There's little RS to suggest she is notable on her own. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bomba Estéreo. I suspect that the "keep" voters above searched for <"Liliana Saumet"> and got a list of results from reliable journalistic sources, but stopped there are did not notice that every single one of them is about the band and her work within it. She has done nothing notable outside the band and there is no need for a separate article. All of the solid sources listed above can be used to improve the band's article as needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:56, 8 May 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.