< May 05	May 07 >

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. Shenanigans around creation push this over the edge, despite zero input and I don't see a third relist changing that. Star Mississippi 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Mirch Lal Mirch – Ek Tikhi Ek Karari[edit]

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

Article has been moved from draft into main space by one of the main creators (the other was a sock of another user) after being moved several times by other editors back into draft space. The sources are generally minimal and all from prior to release.

tvindialive.in - half and half show and main actor, gives some basic info about show (which would be helpful to actually put in the article as premise...), but a couple of paragraphs from a pre-release publicity article pushes the boundaries of significant coverage.
tribuneindia.com - pre-release publicity blurb
prabhasakshi.com - mostly interview, again part of pre-release publicity
updatenownews.com - basic info on show, paragraphs on the main actors, pre-release

Nothing about production, nothing about receptions / reviews - this is a draft article and should be there while it gets more work. It's moved to main space, so on it's merits, I don't see WP:GNG met here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For more of the history of this article, look at the protected page Hari Mirch Lal Mirch - Ek Tikhi Ek Karari. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 22 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!} 23:12, 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!} 23:48, 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 no consensus. after two relists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stephens[edit]

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

this is a person with no notability and most links to his works are now dead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjsross (talk • contribs) (This was incorrectly nominated by Benjsross) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 19:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, United Kingdom, and Computing. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a person with "no notability". Only the links to books used in the article are dead. His books [1][2][3][4] are available at Springer Nature, including the most recent with Barry Boehm as one of the authors. He writes books and articles on agile software development, but books by and for developers don't usually get cited or academically reviewed in a way that lets us document notability. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:19, 23 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!} 23:12, 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!} 23:47, 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 no consensus. after two relists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Monster[edit]

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

Completing nomination by IP 209.82.165.136: Fact Monster is not notable and should be deleted. SN54129 17:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Websites. SN54129 17:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this deleted list of publications shows notability. Will add the first one. Added American Library Association "Best list". StrayBolt (talk) 17:29, 25 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, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 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 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 11:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectNOW (Sudbury)[edit]

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

Article about an unsuccessful and abandoned architectural redevelopment proposal, not establishing a compelling reason why it would pass the ten year test. The footnoting here is split about 50/50 between primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and purely local media coverage not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH, and there isn't really an obvious reason being given here why it would have enough significance as a proposal to outweigh its failure to become a reality. At best, it warrants a couple of lines in Sudbury Community Arena, but there's no compelling basis for a standalone article as a separate topic from that. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 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!} 23:46, 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 keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Shaddick[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose notability claims are not properly referenced to reliable sources. The claims here are that she was assistant provincial commissioner of an organization and that she won that organization's own internal "staff" award, neither of which are "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the three footnotes here comprise her paid-inclusion death notice in the newspaper classifieds and two pieces of content self-published by the organization she was directly affiliated with, none of which are notability-building sources as they don't represent independent journalistic or analytical coverage about her.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Scouting. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dropped the problematic sourcing and and three newspaper sources to document many of the pertinent facts. --evrik ^(talk) 02:52, 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!} 23:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it looks like the recent changes now pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added newspaper sourcing from the 1940s - 1990s. (There are articles in other papers, but the ones chosen gave more in-depth coverage). She was involved in scouting in both England and Canada, was a district commissioner and first woman commissioner appointed in Canada, and then later was an assistant provincial commissioner. Clearly a cut above the average scouting leader. (I do not know if she was successful in getting the film on Baden Powell made, but if someone is interested in searching for it, there is more information in the 1983 clipping.) Sufficient information, over time, in RS, which are independent of the subject to support GNG and write a reasonably complete biography of the subject. SusunW (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 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 11:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot House[edit]

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

Article about a television series, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they purportedly existed -- the notability test requires the reception of reliable source coverage about the show in media independent of itself, in order to establish some credible claim of significance, but this has no references at all and has been tagged as such since 2008 without ever having any new references added.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve 18-year-old Australian media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find enough proper sourcing to salvage it -- but after this long, it can't just stick around in an unsourced state anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 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!} 23:46, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Herald Press[edit]

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

No RS whatsoever. The article was only sourced to LinkedIn (which I removed per WP:RSP) and a permanent dead link to the website, which is no longer active. A BEFORE yielded nothing; it appears this was a small business between two friends that has gone belly up with no lasting impact. Kbabej (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Organizations. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 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!} 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayumi Kameda[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable due to lack of good sources. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 30 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, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched for her name in kanji on the Japanese web and a couple of items popped up, including a very fine recital from 1998, but no coverage from notable sources. It did appear, however, that she may have contributed occasionally to Chopin, a notable Japanese piano magazine. Her married name turns up few more things, including this Swiss article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Cleveland International Piano Competition, in which she came 2nd in 1983, is a fairly well known international competition, which I think would meet "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" from WP:MUSICBIO, and is sourced independently. @CurryTime7-24: I can't access the article linked above; what is the married name? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her married name is Mayumi Kameda-Balet. She married her duo partner. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like she spent much of her career in Switzerland, where she taught at the Conservatoire de Musique de Genève (presumably now retired); notable students include Mélodie Zhao [5] (mentioned in Zhao's article). She was on the pre-selection jury of the Geneva International Competition Piano & Flute in 2014 [6] and on the jury of the Épinal International Piano Competition (which she won in 1981) in 2021, with a decent bio: [7], which states she performed as a soloist with several orchestras, as well as touring internationally in the duo with Balet. Another bio [8] with lots more details. BNF entry [9] gives year and place of birth. WorldCat lists several recordings mainly in the 1990s: [10]

All the sources I'm seeing for the married name are in French; the Japanese/French language barrier may be working against us; also her major career looks to have been in the 1980s/90s, ie pre-internet. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of concert in Singapore published in The Straits Times on 23 August 2012 (courtesy link: [11]), apparently Singapore premiere of the four-handed version of the Rite of Spring. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. --hroest 20:22, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hotpack Global[edit]

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

A7 was declined here (incorrectly, I think). The article as written contains no credible claim of significance. Research turns up sources that look like press releases, not significant coverage: [12], [13], [14]. I don't think reliable, independent sources would describe a company as "the world's leading manufacturer" of anything. What looks more independent is routine -- plant openings and the like: [15] [16] [17]. That does not confer notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. agtx 19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a disposable food packaging producer, describing their product proposition. The company is also known as "H-Pack Packaging", which gives this additional item of announcement-based coverage of their opening of a Wrexham factory, but that and the other annoucement-based items discussed above fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence to demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 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 Draftify. Consensus is the sourcing is not there to have an article on Puig. However as they may become notable, I have draftified it. Given the moves, I have salted the mainspace title until an uninvolved AfC reviewers assesses it as ready. Star Mississippi 01:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ander Puig[edit]

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

Ander Puig

Actor who is too soon to satisfy acting notability or general notability. This article was moved to draft space by User:Praxidicae as not ready for article space, to be incubated in draft space. It was then moved back to article space with the edit summary: "Each of the sentences is referenced. This is a totally arbitrary and unjustified measure." Referencing each of the statements is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for biographies of living persons. Notability is also required. The filmography lists one role that does not appear to be a major role and one future role. Multiple major roles are required for acting notability. The article also does not establish general notability. The first reference is not significant coverage, and the second reference (in Spanish) is an interview, and so not independent secondary coverage. The subject is a textbook case of too soon, and the article should be in draft space, but another unilateral move to draft space would be move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Spain. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I was going to AFD this last night but was mobile. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. His name is mentioned almost entirely with his as of yet non-existent appearance in a show - perhaps once the season airs, he might be notable but it doesn't appear he's held multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR and otherwise doesn't have the significant coverage needed for an article. He isn't the first trans actor on a Netflix show and isn't even the first on the show he's been cast in. CUPIDICAE💕 13:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep: This actor was very notable before his participation in the Elite series became known, at least in the Spanish media. A small share of references ([[18]][[19]][[20]]) --Kanskje ja (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kanskje ja's sources. matt91486 (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So find several hits about the trans actor with the same name, which I assume is this person, the article is bare-bones. A few brief mentions though, sounds like it might be Too Soon as discussed as they aren't even sure what role the person will play and the show doesn't come out til 2023. The other roles look non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 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!} 23:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:TOOSOON. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:40, 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 G7. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Getty[edit]

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

Promotional article on a Non notable socialite and philanthropist who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus fails GNG and fails WP:ANYBIO also, the plethora of sources are a mirage to inundate the inexperienced new page reviewer. A before search turns up nothing concrete. They are model too but WP:ENT isn’t met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Entertainment, United States of America, and California. Celestina007 (talk) 23:30, 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 keep. ✗plicit 23:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of women innovators and inventors by country[edit]

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

Basically the exact same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women inventors. This isn't an article, it doesn't tell the reader anything they couldn't figure out from Category:Women inventors and Category:Women innovators. It also seems very, very lopsided, with dozens of Aerican names and only three Chinese names. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another “X by irrelevant Y and nothing else” list, which should probably be banned across the board as unencyclopedic WP:NOTINFO cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete Although it's gained some more entries since it was nominated, it feels like a duplicate of categories more than anything. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can see the point of deleting the other, much broader list (List of women inventors), I would argue that the List of women innovators and inventors by country does add value for users searching for information about women inventors geographically. It also provides short summaries of each woman's era and type of invention, which would take longer to find when searching through category pages. The nominator's point about too many American entries and not enough other nationalities is a better argument for improvement than deletion. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the criteria for inclusion on this list? Just already being an inventor with a Wikipedia page? I agree WP:DINC though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument that readers are well served by categories is false, because categories don't Google, and appear rarely used by readers as in general they get very limited traffic. They present the subject in a very unreader-friendly fashion. In particular, in this case, the categories are not divided by country; if one is looking for, say, German women who were inventors, there's no way of finding them from the categories. We, properly, have very large numbers of lists where categories exist, which enable readers to see the subjects in context (chronology, geography, &c). The bias towards inclusion of Americans is in no way a rationale for deletion, but for improvement. Google reveals a wealth of sources for such material; there is certainly significant coverage. ETA A smattering of web/news content in addition to the material mentioned below: [21],[22],[23],[24],[25] Espresso Addict (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. “X by irrelevant Y and nothing else” lists serve the user very well. There are many of them, and they are to be encouraged. The broad subject is reflected in publications such as Creese, Mary R. S.; Creese, Thomas M. (2004). Ladies in the Laboratory II: West European Women in Science, 1800-1900 : a Survey of Their Contributions to Research. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810849792., which is to say that women by innovations, inventions, contributions, is a WP:N notable subject. WP:NOTINFO does not fit here: we are not discussing "an indiscriminate collection of information". And as others have said, deletion is not cleanup. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of the notable group or set per WP:LISTN, due to secondary sources that could also help develop the contextual presentation in the article, e.g. Mothers and Daughters of Invention: Notes for a Revised History of Technology (1995, e.g. "Stanley traces women's inventions in five vital areas of technology worldwide"), Feminine Ingenuity: Women and Invention in America (2010), Female Innovators at Work: Women on Top of Tech (2016, e.g. "female innovators and entrepreneurs in the still largely male-dominated tech-world"), Wonder Women: 25 Innovators, Inventors, and Trailblazers Who Changed History (2016), Women in Science: Fearless Pioneers Who Changed the World (2021, e.g. "The collection includes diverse women across various scientific fields, time periods, and geographic locations."), Gender, Diversity and Innovation: Concepts, Policies and Practice (2022, e.g. "with a central focus on the experiences of women innovators, exploring different geographic and institutional contexts"), Female Innovators Who Changed Our World: How Women Shaped STEM (2022, e.g. "the lives of 46 women, taking you into the cultural and social context of the world they lived in."). Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:LISTN as Beccaynr had said. Fade258 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information and navigational list. You can't delete a list because you prefer categories. If its notable for one, its notable for the other. A list allows far more information to be presented than a category does, so far more useful. Dream Focus 10:14, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Moise Dedou[edit]

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

Lacking substantial secondary source coverage in either English or French. agtx 21:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. agtx 21:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only online coverage of this footballer is trivial in nature (e.g., database entries); fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS coverage found under "Abraham Moise Dedou" or "Abraham Dedou" Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 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 the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Žigárdy[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Joeykai (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:05, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallium(III) carbonate[edit]

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

No evidence that this gallium carbonate exists. pubchem is not a reference that shows this exists. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2012.11.075 it states "there are no known gallium carbonate compounds". (there are known double salts with rubidium or ammonium, or mixed anion compound with formate) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 22:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Gallium compounds or delete if it does not exist. It is not notable enough for its own article even if it did exist. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been proven to not exist, I think we should delete instead of redirecting. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can get Wilhelm Segerblom saying that this is "said to exist" in the early 20th century, ISBN 9780128145227 talking about simulations, and student textbooks using this as a hypothetical. But, conversely, ISBN 9780751401035 has no mention, nor has ISBN 9781483153223, which are really the sorts of works where this would definitely be documented. Sources such as ISBN 9788121942546 and Joseph William Mellor's Treatise on Inorganic and Theoretical chemistry are more explicit: "Gallium carbonate has not been prepared." This outright falsifies this article, which claims to show its preparation. This is a verifiable falsehood. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I removed the preparations section, as we cannot give uncited and wrong information to readers like this. Since it does not exist, we should delete it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just copied from neodymium(III) carbonate article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A similar thing happened with neodymium acetate and gallium acetate. Gallium acetate was just a shell of a chemical article copied off neodymium acetate (you can literally check the creation edit summary) with no references and no apparent notability. I proposed it for deletion but it was declined, and eventually some references were added. However, gallium acetate actually exists, unlike gallium(III) carbonate. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So delete or redirect? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it does not exist. If it existed, redirecting would have been the better option because it is not notable anyway. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I created the article, I would also propose to delete the article as I didn't check to see if it existed. Bli231957 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bli231957: Note that some substances that don't exist are notable if many have written about it. Perhaps there are many attempts to make it, or a lot of theory. I could not find any of that for this substance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. Anyway this non-existing compound doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Bli231957 (talk) 15:11, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manyame Conservation Trust[edit]

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

Manyame Conservation Trust

Organization that does not show any evidence of satisfying organizational notability or general notability. Already moved from article space to draft space by User:Singularity42, then recreated by copy-paste by originator, and still does not make a credible claim of significance, let alone of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Zimbabwe. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Drafity~~ or delete. At the moment, there is insufficient information or reliable sources to support notability. The version I moved to draft has now had a history merge with this version, leaving it open to re-drafity, where the author could work on it to see if they can improve the sources and basis to establish notability. As it currently stands, if not moved to draftspace, it would have to be deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I am changing my !vote to just delete. This was draftified years ago, the (same) author let it go stale and it was deleted without the author making any claims of notability. The author then created the earlier version today, which was draftified, and then instead of working on that to improve any claim of notability, just re-created it again in mainspace. I think there has been sufficient time and opportunities to establish notability. A conclusive AfD will help settle this with some finality. Singularity42 (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed. Search finds nothing more than social media etc., and those two RS articles already cited, which just regurgitate the organisation's press statements, without providing sigcov of the organisation itself. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom – robertsky (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Draftification won't help. Azuredivay (talk) 08:51, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Duthie[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. Has been tagged for a month. Creator is indeffed for undisclosed paid editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to Soccerbase he spent his entire carer in the First or Second Scottish Divisions, and the lack of coverage reflects that low level of play that does not justify an article. Giant Snowman 08:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG/notability criteria Coldupnorth (talk) 08:32, 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 keep. per sources identified during the discussion Star Mississippi 01:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ibrahim Salman[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. Zero references except to an entry in a database. Was tagged for the by a different NPP'er a month ago. No indication of notability under GNG or the current SNG. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no coverage in the article and I didn't find any during a short search. Alvaldi (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are sources out there if you search under the Arabic and Hebrew names, player with 20 appearances in the Israeli top flight. Giant Snowman 08:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Hebrew sources I looked at are very thin, they are just Hebrew statistic websites like soccerway or soccerbase. Considering he plays top flight football in Israel I thought there might have been more. I think you would need someone like SuperJew to look into this. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping Govvy. I will have a search soon. Unfortunately not so free rn, so I hope I will be able to do so before the AFD closes, and wish this was brought up in a different forum since WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Pinging Nehme1499 who can help with searching in Arabic. --SuperJew (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've found these: [26], [27], [28]. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existence of sufficient sources for the WP:GNG, also noted Snowman before me. The qualification "zero references", not an argument for delete anyway, no longer applies. Do rename to Ahmed Salman per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. gidonb (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite a few sources about him in Hebrew describing his talent and up and coming career, including interest from Europe (by Dynamo Kiev, Zenit, Kortjik): [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. There are probably more sources also in Arabic. --SuperJew (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've gone over the sources above that come from three different publications. From one.co.il, this one (28.12.2021) discusses a transfer rumor and goes a little bit into his performance during his debut season. The other one (21.12.2021) is a match report that briefly mentions him and doesn't go towards GNG (which doesn't really matter as two sources from the same publication count as one in regards establishing notability with GNG). There are three sources from sport5.co.il. This one (29.12.2021) discusses the same transfer rumor as the one from one.co.il and is dated the day after. This one (22.12.2021) has one paragraph on the subject but like his career so far, its relatively short. The third one (22.12.2021) is a brief match report that mentions him once. Then there is the the one (22.12.2021) from Israel Hayom and as far as I can see it is a match report where he seems to be briefly mention for having scored his first goal. Note that all of the sources are from a span of a week in December 2021.

In my opinion these sources do not establish that he passes WP:GNG as they are neither significant enough, and even if they were, they are not from a sufficiently significant period of time, i.e. they are only a brief bursts of news coverage. However, he does seem to have the potential to gain coverage in the future so draftifying the article is probably the best course of action. Alvaldi (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one.co.il and the first sport5.co.il are not the same transfer rumour - the first is about Dynamo Kiev and Villarreal, the second about Zenit and Kortjik. The second one.co.il is about a man of the match performance. --SuperJew (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Summarizing the sources thus far:

1. AlArab: No sigcov

2. AlArab: Fine source, counts towards the GNG

3. Yahlla: No sigcov

4. One: Fine source, counts towards the GNG

5. Sport5: Fine source, counts towards the GNG

6. Sport5: Contains a biography and analysis; brief but counts

7. One: No sigcov

8. Sport5: These are two great phrases; brief and just not enough

9. HaYom: No sigcov

I count 4 fine sources, where 2 are needed. The mixed herring and salami approach, this article is about this and this about that, is an old AfD strategy and is quite boring. For example: this article is not about the company, it's only about who leads it, who invests in it, what they produce, and how much they make. Not recommended because it pointlessly prolongs discussions where Wikipedians could be working in the article space. gidonb (talk) 12:57, 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. Star Mississippi 02:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Quinn (footballer)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, he never played a competitive game for either Sheffield United or Central Coast Mariners, only playing for League of Ireland teams which is not listed as a fully professional league.

From the page history, it seems this article was created back in 2007 when he was just a Sheffield United youth player, so it would never have met today's notability criteria to be created.

Player is not listed on English National Football Archive so never played a first-team game for Sheffield United, and I can't find him on http://www.aleaguestats.com/index.html or https://www.ultimatealeague.com/ for Central Coast Mariners Nonleagueapps (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nonleagueapps (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below and article improvement. Giant Snowman 17:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the subject may not fully meet WP:CRIM or WP:NSPORT alone, a WP:BEFORE search returns (to my reckoning) sufficient coverage (in both spheres) to warrant an article. (While WP:NFOOTY criteria has recently changed [previously being "played in top-level fully pro league"], I've often wondered if we forget to look at WP:SIGCOV and lean on "never played a competitive game in [EFL Championship/Premiership]" type "participation" criteria. Certainly the nomination only refers to a "participation in games" style rationale. As if coming on in the last 90 seconds of a single Sheffield United game would've flipped the notability switch one way or the other. Anyway, based on the sports pages and courts pages coverage, mine is a "keep" recommendation). Guliolopez (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the sources together, although weak, they build a picture which to me does pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guliolopez is right, WP:SIGCOV is what we should be looking at. I do however feel that Quinn's case is rather weak. This is the best source that I can find before his 2020 arrest for heroin trafficking. There are several stories that mention him following the arrest,[35][36][37] but I wasn't really able to find a source that goes into the subject in detail. He does however get mentioned alot more than the others involved in the case, seemingly as he was a professional footballer, albeit not a notable one, and due to having two famous brothers. Alvaldi (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I'm unclear what "source analysis" is required (beyond the discussion above on what has been found and added to the article as part of WP:BEFORE), I would note that there are several RS news sources in "courts pages" and "sports pages". Each covering the subject as a primary topic. In terms of the "courts" coverage, we have the stuff covering charge, sentencing, jailing, appeal and beyond. In terms of "sports pages" there is stuff from short bios to typical transfer news and points in between. While, as several contributors here have noted, the sports coverage is not overwhelming on its own (being the type of transfer, short bio, interviews in match-buildup type stuff common enough for pro-footballers in pro-leagues), and the courts coverage also not overwhelming on its own, when taken together it builds to a picture of SIGCOV/notability. (In short, if the subject had 'only' been a drug traffiker OR had 'only' been a pro footballer, then notability would probably be questionable. But, both together attracted coverage sufficient to meet the criteria.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources that have been added. Can @GiantSnowman: revisit his opinion above, now that more sources have come to light? Nfitz (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. We have a non notable footballer (who escaped the attention of the "delete fails N:FOOTBALL" editors) and a non notable drug trafficker who fails WP:CRIME. The crime related coverage is routine stuff the majority of crimes get in the press. Also they focus on the legal process and provide no significant coverage of Quinn. When the keeps are relying on a lenient sentence being successfully appealed for GNG then that just shows the weakness of their arguments. The bar a criminal needs to clear for a Wiki page is a high one and Quinn doesn't even get off the ground. Dougal18 (talk) 11:20, 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 no consensus. Consensus is the content should not be deleted. The discussion as to whether keep or merge (and if so, which target) does not require continuation of this AfD. Star Mississippi 02:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bromance (American TV series)[edit]

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

Only non-primary sources are interviews and announcements, some in tabloids, and I'm not convinced that meets WP:GNG. PRODded by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), who allegedly found no other usable sources in WP:BEFORE, but deprodded by Matt91486 (talk · contribs), who added two of the current four non-primary sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as prodder. One of the sources added has a very flippant, snarky tone that doesn't seem conducive to WP:SIGCOV and may be a disguised PR piece. The other secondary sources are just boilerplate "X is getting a show" coverage that also might be disguised press releases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Totally okay to hit Gawker for tone (it is a famous part of their shtick), but I think it is highly unlikely that it's a PR piece. matt91486 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is deleted, then Bromance (Taiwanese TV series) will be moved to Bromance (TV series). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for me, the coverage is sufficient to meet the GNG, as there are, as you say, four non primary sources. I don't think the article can really advance beyond a stub, but stubs are perfectly acceptable articles according to wikipedia policy. matt91486 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases and tabloids do not meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional sources available such as this, this, and this. NemesisAT (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are press releases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom, or ATD Merge to the start-class Brody Jenner. I see no notability in a six episode show, sourced largely by sites in the "External links" and six "This Might Not Have Been the Best Idea. Cabs are Here! But the Page You're Looking for Isn't." The show had somewhere in the neighborhood of 900,000 viewers, terrible ("underwhelming ratings") reviews, and a 2.6 rating. The star is notable but that is not a good reason to have a stand-- Otr500 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I am not sure what policy was referred to when it was stated " I don't think the article can really advance beyond a stub, but stubs are perfectly acceptable articles according to wikipedia policy.". The "stubs guideline" includes: A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, and that is capable of expansion., and a reason why we merge articles where the combined content can possible expand one to be better, AND -- where content is not dependent on notability standards. We have editors that take any subject and make an article that would be better presented in another article. A PERMASTUB can be acceptable but this subject did not add to or become permanent fixture on Jenner, so a merge/redirect is likely a better direction. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links being dead is irrelevant especially when they are easily retrievable via the Wayback Machine, as I have now done for this article. NemesisAT (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Thank you but I was specifically referring to the episodes.

PLEASE NOTE: Links being dead are absolutely relevant. When notability is questioned (tags or AFD) we do not have to accept using dead links or have to dig around looking or otherwise researching to try to fix link problems to determine if notability exists. We have sources so that others can check to see where the information came from and that there is no [[WP:OR|original research, plagiarism, synthesis, or indiscrimininate information. WP:BURDEN is policy. INCITE, WP:WHYCITE, WP:INTEXT, and Wikipedia:INTEGRITY are guidelines that we use to verify the subject and content. This does not, however, change the fact that a merge would be a better solution or deletion as not notable. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Osegueda, Mike (2008-06-20). "Brody Jenner's 'Bromance' takes reality TV to a new low". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "I speak, of course, about "Bromance."I have no problem with people of the same sex marrying each other, but I do have a problem with Brody Jenner, his new MTV reality show and the whole idea of "Bromance" -- that grown men would compete on television to be part of the entourage of Bruce Jenner's son. ... Either that or "Bromance," and its reality TV inbreeding, is a new low of faux-celebrity worship."
2. Hiltbrand, David (2009-01-03). "Get real, MTV - The channel, in a ratings recession, plans to unload 16 (!) new reality shows. If they're all like the first, there's a real raunch-fest ahead". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "What has me in high dudgeon is that MTV, trying to halt a precipitous ratings slide, has just announced a slate of 16 new reality shows. If they're anything like Bromance, which the channel debuted this week, I'm putting a parental lock on MTV and throwing away the key. Bromance gives nine young men the dubious opportunity to join the posse of vapid Hollywood club kid Brody Jenner. At the start of this dismal and derivative show, the nine candidates are yanked out of their beds in the middle of the night by hulking security guards who throw black hoods over the guys' heads and frog-march them in their skivvies into a van."
3. Martin, Patti (2008-12-28). "He'll Be Your New Best Friend. Matawan's Michael Flatley kindes a 'Bromance' on MTV". Asbury Park Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Starring Brody Jenner (Bruce Jenner's son and, more importantly, the on-and-off again love interest of "The Hills" star Lauren Conrad), the show takes a group of regular guys from around the country and brings them to Los Angeles to compete for the coolest chance of a lifetime, to become best buds with Jenner and live the luxe life right out of a magazine. ... While battling for bromance, the contestants spend their time in a frat house in L.A. or on group "dream dates," including skydiving in Las Vegas, cruising on a 50-foot yacht and hanging out with Playboy Playmates."
4. "Brody Jenner: 'Bromance' Winner 'Loyal, Down To Earth'". WRC-TV. 2009-02-05. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Brody Jenner has found his new bro. Luke, from Medford, Mass., was the winner of MTV’s first season of “Bromance,” which chronicled Brody’s search for a new pal. Nine guys from across the country were flown to LA and put through a series of challenges to determine who the best fit was for Brody’s crew."
5. "MTV goes looking for 'Bromance'". Press-Register. Zap2it. 2008-06-13. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "The show, called "Bromance" and executive produced by Ryan Seacrest, has secured a six-episode commitment. Part goof on shows like "The Bachelor" and part capitalization on pop-cultural touchstones "Superbad" and "Entourage," the show will bring guys from around the country to L.A., where they will hang with Jenner and take part in challenges ranging from skydiving into Las Vegas to serving as Jenner's wingman."
6. "'Bromance' is in the air for two U. Central Florida students". UWIRE. 2009-01-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "After a long, intimidating audition process, Orlando residents Femi Borisade, Jered Getman and Chris Favis, along with six other men from around the country, learned that they were going to spend the next weeks vying for "Bromance." ... The reality show features nine 20-something males competing for a "bromance" with Brody Jenner, step-brother of socialite Kim Kardashian, and star of MTV's "The Hills." ... The episode ended with one contestant voluntarily leaving and another getting eliminated in Jenner's hot tub."
7. Getlen, Larry (2008-12-28). "Over the 'Hills'". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article provides two paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Party boy Brody Jenner, the on-again, off-again love interest of Lauren Conrad, stars in “Bromance,” a reality series that aims to find the party bond a brother figure to bond with. MTV is thinking Matt Damon and Ben Affleck or George Clooney and Brad Pitt, but since Jenner bears no resemblance to those movie stars, it will be interesting to see what MTV comes up with. Nine guys live in a frat house and are sent on group “dream dates,” like skydiving in Las Vegas, cruising the Pacific on a 50-foot yacht and hanging out with Playboy playmates. Jenner scrutinizes each potential bro to see who always has his back. Brace yourself for lots of limos, , lingerie parties, blowup dolls, bar brawls, backstabbing and emotional breakdowns."
8. Nordyke, Kimberly (2008-06-09). ""Bromance" in air for "Hills" co-star Jenner". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Reuters]].
  The article notes: "“The Hills” co-star Brody Jenner is getting his own MTV series. The network has committed to six episodes of “Bromance,” which has been the subject of recent online attention. The show, from Ryan Seacrest’s production company, will feature a group of “regular guys” who come to Hollywood and compete in a series of challenges, from skydiving to dealing with the paparazzi -- in hopes of being chosen by Jenner to become part of his entourage."
9. Sayles, Matt (2008-06-10). "Brody Jenner Looking for Bromance on MTV". People. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "Challenges will include skydiving into Las Vegas, navigating paparazzi and being Jenner’s wingman."
10. Bruno, Mike (2008-12-31). "'The City,' 'Bromance' premieres score weak ratings". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Monday’s 9 p.m. series premiere of Brody Jenner’s competition show, Bromance, fared even worse, attracting just 963,00 viewers."
11. Schneider, Michael (2008-06-09). "MTV taps Jenner for 'Bromance'. Contestants to vie for 'bro' status with 'Hills' star". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "MTV has given a six-episode commitment to “Bromance,” which follows “The Hills” star Brody Jenner as he auditions a group of dudes to fill his “bro” vacancy. ... Seacrest and Jenner will exec produce with Eric Podwall and Eliot Goldberg. Jason Henry and Kathy Sutula co-created the project."
12. Morago, Greg (2009-03-20). "Dude, male bonding isn't dead bros: Buddy shows, films feature bromances". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Brody Jenner stood by his man, Luke, in the final episode of Bromance, ending one of pop culture's more curious chapters of high-profile male bonding. But just because the MTV reality series has concluded is no reason to assume brotherly love is a dead trend. ... If you miss observing the intricacies of man-on-man friendship that made Bromance so very special, check out ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bromance to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brody Jenner. The sourcing is a little thin, and while it's possible to make a weak GNG claim, per WP:NOPAGE we don't need a stand-alone article. All of the sourcing is about Jenner, routine industry announcements, or very brief criticism, and that can be summarized in a section at the bio page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to The Hills (TV Series). While not successful, it was still a program on a major television channel with ties to both a famous actor and other (at the time) popular show. However, as a spinoff of The Hills (TV show) it would seem more appropriate to merge the two related television series rather than put the article into Brody Jenner's biographical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A MINOTAUR (talk • contribs) 19:52, 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 Taiwan frigate scandal. Content remains available under the redirect for those wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Wang[edit]

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

This article contains harmful inaccuracies which are not adequately supported by the citations provided, which is impermissible in an article which falls under BLP rules. It should be deleted to avoid misinformation, but also because Bruno Wang, the article subject, is low profile and does not meet significant coverage standards according to WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited because of his father's (and not his) alleged involvement in a Taiwanese frigate scandal, which was also a single event. The article subject was in fact a student in the United States of America when these events took place.

The claims in the article that "Bruno and his father Andrew are key figures in the Taiwan frigate scandal with Bruno allegedly connected to the murder of Capt. Yin Ching-feng." is untrue about the article subject and not adequately sourced for a BLP. The source (irishtimes.com) alleges that Andrew Wang was connected to the alleged murder (which is untrue) but does not suggest that the article subject was. Similarly, the lead that the article subject is a "fugitive best known for his involvement in the Taiwan frigate scandal" is incorrect and unsourced. Only the article subject’s father was suspected to have been involved and the article subject has in fact been found by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in 2019 to be an "innocent third party."

The remainder of the page is commentary on the article subject's philanthropic activities, and the citations linked to these points indicate a low level of media coverage/interest.

In the interest of transparency, I have a connection to the article subject. info-en-q@wikimedia.org advised submitting a deletion request after they were emailed. Tidesino (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, coverage is overwhelming and the subject does a lot of self promotion so they are most definitely a public figure (low profile people generally don't have their own promotional websites[38]). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is still relatively unknown [prior rationale snipped], and he hasnt been convicted so I think a BLPREQUESTDELETE should be accepted. Jumpytoo Talk 06:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: there is no grounds to honor a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE where a subject meets WP:GNG as this one does. Also note that this is not a BLPREQUESTDELETE case as it is not being requested by the subject of the article, it only applies "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion," which hasn't happened here. Please also note that using the Daily Mail in that manner is a WP:BLP violation, please remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if GNG is met, I believe BLPREQUESTDELETE can still be applied, the WP notability stems from the WP:BLPCRIME content and as they are still only accusations I believe much more leeway can be given here (I could not find significant coverage about him that is mainly focused on his philanthropy, if such sources do exist on the other ventures alone that can meet NBIO then I can reconsider). Regarding if it is the article subject who requested this, I assumed it is someone authorized to speak on his behalf based off the COI disclosure, but I could be wrong here. @Tidesino:, would you like to elaborate on your connection to the subject, and what prompted you to request deletion? Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jumptytoo:, I can confirm that I am Mr Wang's advisor (hence my COI disclosure) and I am authorised to make this request on his behalf. I was prompted to do so after emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org for advice - the editor who picked up the email advised that submitting a deletion request was the most appropriate course of action. Tidesino (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of our coverage is about the crime per say, the related coverage we have seems to be about what happened to the proceeds of crime which is a little different (clearly not WP:1E). The coverage of his involvement in the prince's cash for honor scandal for example. Also note that page had 987 visitors in the last month, not what one would expect for a low profile figure or someone known only for a crime committed 20+ years ago (and again, he has a promotional website so he does not qualify as a low profile figure... Its hard to conceive of a way in which having your own purely promotional website does not qualify as "actively seek out media attention"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many low-profile people have their own websites to express themselves professionally (I have one myself), so I wouldn't put too much on that. I also believe implying usage of dirty money still fits in WP:BLPCRIME. Maybe an article on Andrew Wang is possible if the WP:1E issue regarding him could be surmounted, in which case an redirection is possible as ATD. But because BLP applies to Bruno I just think its better to be safe than sorry. Jumpytoo Talk 05:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is circular and without a logical basis. You could just as easily conclude that you are a public figure, particularly if that website is actually published under your own name (remember that we hold bloggers and citizen journalists to be public figures). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is difficult to reconcile the "low profile" claim with him creating a company called Bruno Wang Productions, being a spokesperson for the organization, hiring a PR agency (close up media) to promote statements from Bruno Wang about Bruno Wang Productions.^[1] Those actions seems like someone seeking publicity. Then I see that he is in the news, not because of his father's actions, but because he gave 500,000 to Prince Charles. I think he is notable. I think if there are inaccuracies you should draw attention to them and show sources that refute them on the talk page of the article. CT55555 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bruno Wang Productions: 'People, Places and Things' Secures Nominations for 4 Olivier Awards." Wireless News, 12 Apr. 2016. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A449179767/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=f7d52821. Accessed 5 May 2022.

On the topic of whether Mr Wang is low-profile/self-promoting, he has business interests and it is necessary to provide updates about those businesses in the way that many non-notable business people and companies do. Regarding the news you mention, Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue. Moreover, the donation amount referred to is inaccurate as the £500,000 is attributed to a different donor in the original source. It should also be noted that these articles quote from the Daily Mail as their source, which, as previously mentioned, is typically considered inappropriate for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue" doesn't appear to be true, he is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself, see The Telegraph's feature piece entitled "Prince Charles's charity mired in further controversy over donor linked to Taiwanese arms deal."[39]. This PR release [40] is about his philanthropy, not his business or company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my analysis, and please tell me if I've erred:

He named him company after himself by choice
He chose to be the spokes person
He was not forced to stand in front of a photographer
He could have made the donations quietly, without publicity, but chose not to

So my two questions are:

A - Are any of those 4 points incorrect

B - Are they hallmarks of low or high profile people? CT55555 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using your name as a company enables the company's work to be associated with you, but is not the same as seeking publicity.
Being a company spokesperson is also not the same as seeking publicity. It provides the name of someone to whom questions can be directed.
Being photographed is not the same as seeking publicity. This is especially true when the subject never publicised this photo.
The official plaque recording the gift thanks Pureland Foundation, not the article subject. Neither the article subject or Pureland Foundation sought any publicity for the donation.

I trust these answers also address your further questions at A and B.Tidesino (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Thank you for your comments. I don't think his actions are consistent with those of a low profile individual. After considering carefully and giving you the chance to persuade me otherwise, I !vote keep CT55555 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC) (scored out my own comment CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Tidesino: This press release isn't even about philanthropy, "Bruno Wang, an avid film buff and a fan of comic book legends, hereby invites the public to watch the movie The Avengers that is set to be released on May 4, 2012. Anyone who does so is also invited to log onto Bruno Wang's Facebook profile at https://www.facebook.com/brunowangtaiwan to share their own reviews of the film so that their thoughts can be shared with the entire Facebook community and so that people can be aware of the general reaction of what some feel will be a blockbuster."[41] including a whole promotional "About Bruno Wang" section. There are a whole bunch of these... "Bruno Wang Recaps a Memorable Weekend at the British Open, Featuring an Unforgettable Finish"[42], "Film and Anime Fan Bruno Wang to Attend London Film & Comic Con in July of 2012 at Olympia Grand Hall"[43], "Bruno Wang to Attend Comic World 34 in Hong Kong With Mrs. Wang to Enjoy Anime Exhibits and Presentations"[44], . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tidesino: you replied above but you missed this one, would you not agree that these press releases are promoting Mr Wang personally and not his business interests? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye’s Back: This material is not about the article subject, but rather about another person (or persons) with the same name.

It is also incorrect to say Mr Wang “is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself” - it should be noted that there is no actual wording within the Telegraph article (or any others) that supports any such claims made against him. Tidesino (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is that possible? Surely they can't all be for a different "Bruno Wang" unless the other Bruno Wang also has a charity named "Pure Land Foundation" [45]. This is clearly the article subject and his charity seeking publicity for a donation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source [8] does refer to the article subject, I was referring to [4],[5],[6] and [7] which have no connection to the article subject Tidesino (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that [8] (at least) does refer to the article subject do you now wish to re-evaluate your statement about Mr Wang not seeking publicity? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the website "Bruno Wang News"[46] run by the subject of the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as single Google News search gives as:

If I'm missing something, please correct me.--_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail cannot be used. This simply mentions his name in a list of attendees. This is simply a photo caption as is this. THis is why a search is not necessarily helpful in determining notability @NeverTry4Me. No judgement on CNNI piece as I cannot read it, but it doesn't appear to be substantive. Star Mississippi 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: kind of a moot point given that the coverage already included in the article gets us well over the GNG bar. We don't need additional sources to establish notability, we have more than enough already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not taking a position on the article @Horse Eye's Back, just responding to @NeverTry4Me's query of If I'm missing something, please correct me. because "here's a bunch of hits" isn't helpful in an AfD if they don't in fact prove notability. Star Mississippi 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi:I agree that it isn't helpful, in answering their question of "if I'm missing something" I'd note that there is a considerable amount of feature coverage of the subject outside of English (primarily in traditional Mandarin, as would be expected of the coverage of a notable figure from Taiwan) but I am not fluent and I don't trust google translate for BLP so perhaps the help of someone fluent would be helpful. Coverage in languages other than english *does* contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh absolutely. I only disregarded the CNNI one as I cannot read it, not because it's not usable. The English sourcing that NT4M presented doesn't add up to anything other than confirming Wang's identity, which does not appear to be at issue. Star Mississippi 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the opening gambit of the article was that his father was involved in a scandle, notability is not inherited. The little coverage there is fails WP:GNG and is of poor quality. Fleeting mentions do not = notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: Surely you aren't saying that [47] is just a passing mention or low quality, that just wouldn't be credible given the length and depth of the coverage or the quality of the OCCRP (literally among the highest in the world). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map and before taking the "No consensus" route, I want to give this discussion another week to see if some consensus can emerge, specifically on whether BLP violations are still present and whether, without them, GNG is met, that there is still sourcing beyond passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to relisting comment: The debate seems to have become overly focused on whether the subject is low-profile, but that should not be the core argument of this debate. Being low-profile is a personal preference of Mr Wang. There is some material online about work which Mr Wang or his Foundation supports in a professional capacity, but this does not demonstrate seeking wider publicity, as this material supports the events and the charitable causes, not the donation. There is also a blog, which does refer to some productions Mr Wang has supported, but this is limited to personal reflections on their content among other subjects.

Regardless, none of this contributes to Mr Wang’s notability, which does not meet GNG. What few relevant mentions there are online are either passing, or minor theatre industry press etc. or derive from association with the frigate litigation, which various courts have found to be “scandalous and vexatious” and indeed have found the article subject to be an innocent third party. BLPCRIME states “A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.”

Until I raised this debate, there were appalling unfounded accusations in the article, wrongly connecting Mr Wang to an alleged murder which were hastily removed but should never have been added to begin with. The article has since been updated with unencyclopedic information such as company address locations and disputes with an advisory team. The addition of these minor details at this time does not satisfy GNG. All of this falls short of Wikipedia standards for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT (not my first)

On low profile

You are the one who said he was "low profile" in the context of WP:BIO1E. And it was a fair point to debate. But you should now not be surprised that the accuracy of the claim you asked us to discuss...is now being discussed. I consider the WP:BLP set of rules to not be breached.

On accuracy

If earlier versions of the article were incorrect, but now fixed, then that is a good thing and we should continue to discuss the article as it stands now.

On notability

To try to get us back on the track that User:Liz was steering us towards, that therefore leaves the other main issues of WP:GNG. To satisfy that, we'd generally expect significant coverage in several sources. I think in this context, we should be rigorous about that. So are there at least WP:THREE good sources?

https://www.occrp.org/en/suisse-secrets/leading-taiwan-politician-had-secret-credit-suisse-account-at-time-of-major-defense-corruption-scandal this is significant
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/09/21/2003764737 is borderline, but I think enough to be one of three
https://www.artlini.net/charles-and-chinese-donor-wanted-in-taiwan/ is in depth, but I am not sure about the quality of the source
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/19/prince-charless-charity-mired-controversy-donor-linked-taiwanese/ mentions him several times, it's more than trivial

In summary

So reflecting on the points that we've been directed to focus on, I think it's BLP compliant and I think it's a GNG pass, even if it's not a slam dunk for either. And I remain with my keep vote, and I remain open minded to being persuaded otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is including a feature length news article[48] about Mr Wang's very public court dispute with his financial advisory team unencyclopedic (note that this is feature length coverage which has nothing to do with the frigate scandal)? How is running a website called 'Bruno Wang News' to promote news about Bruno Wang not seeking wider publicity? Thank you for confirming that there are not currently any BLP issues with the page, I apologize for any errors which may have previously been present. I will also note that if they had been found innocent as you claim we'd either have some media coverage of that or the Taiwanese MOJ would have taken down their digital wanted poster but its still live[49]. Mr Wang appears to still be an active fugitive from justice. What we do have coverage of is a conviction in the Jersey islands which returned millions of Mr Wang's stolen dollars to Taiwan, did that slip your mind when listing various courts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be debate to be had regarding the content of the page itself (which still contains inaccuracies), but the only issue to be determined here is should it exist at all? To summarise the most important reasons why it shouldn’t:

WPCRIME rules are clear that if someone is only notable in connection with a crime/trial/litigation, a separate page is not necessary.
GNG have not been satisfied to indicate that Mr Wang was mentioned in a widely circulated news story where the frigate litigation aspect does not factor. The other coverage referred to is not material which has had any traction in the media, nor would it.
It has been suggested that Mr Wang has a conviction in Jersey. This is not correct. There are no convictions against Mr Wang, or his family, in any jurisdiction including in Taiwan. Indeed, Mr Wang has been found to be an innocent third party by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in connection with the frigate litigation.
Inaccurate claims like this can cause real harm. Major mistakes were made including wrongly accusing Mr Wang of being connected to an alleged murder and other mistakes are still present in this page. Mistakes have appeared in this debate too, I note that several articles about the wrong Bruno Wang were quoted at one point. Given this, sources here should not be accepted at face value.

In conclusion, whilst we could continue to debate content issues, this isn’t necessary because by applying normal principles, the page should not exist at all. Tidesino (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find guidance in WP:CRIME very relevant and compelling. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."

I'm changing my !vote to redirect. CT55555 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reporting about the decision by the court in Jersey inaccurate? I remain unconvinced, WP:GNG appears to be met and "disqualify everything even tangentially related to criminal activity and then count the remaining articles" is not how GNG works. GNG is satisfied by [50][51][52][53][54][55], if you want to continue to challenge under WPCRIME you can (that is your most likely path to making your boss happy) but GNG has clearly been met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge (used the wrong term, self-edit CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)) I found the reference to WP:CRIME by the nominator compelling. I change my vote to redirected and score out my keep from above. CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: do you mean redirect or merge? There is available encyclopedic material relating to that person that is not incorporated into the existing article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you correctly identified that I miswrote, indeed I meant the one that keeps content, so that would be merge (sorry for ambiguity, I tend to vote keep/delete/drafity until now. I'll score out and correct on my next edit. CT55555 (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taiwan frigate scandal - I think that is the most suitable compromise between the two sides. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 16 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 deletion, a discussion on whether to keep or merge (and where to) can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 13:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leipziger Platz 12[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING as lacking "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources". Unclear what this article is actually supposed to be about given its title is an address but it is categorised in Category:Diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The material present is sourced to a book chapter (Eva-Marie Krolle. "The New Canadian Embassy in Berlin", pp. 350–51) which cites a book about the square: Louis Back, Laurenz Demps Der Leipziger Platz: Gestern und Morgen, p. 46 (Braun, 2002). A casual search of Google Books finds several hits in Tanja Schult, Jochen Visscher, Hans Wilderotter Der Leipziger Platz, Leipziger Platz Carre, Lennedreieck: urbane Architektur für das neue Berlin (Jovis, 2002) as well as some possibilities in Fredric Bedoire The Jewish Contribution to Modern Architecture, 1830-1930 (KTAV, 2004). Lots more possible hits in Google Books but mainly German-language snippet view. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Book mentions of Leipziger Platz do not contribute to the notability of this individual address. These really seem very trivial mentions in works about the square or other topics. AusLondonder (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been quite a lot of discussion of the history of the square, and of its individual buildings, in the context of the recent rebuilding. I'm really unclear as to the rationale for deleting this. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, perhaps, to Leipziger Platz article, which itself is short, and could contain mention of this building as having been significant there. Currently the article doesn't have much content, while I presume that it would be possible to describe the building and its architecture. Note the lede sentence "Leipziger Platz 12 was the address of a former mansion designed by Friedrich Hitzig in Berlin, Germany", as if it is about the address not the building/mansion. If the mansion were covered in the Leipziger Platz article, it would add context there to considering the overall Platz's development/replacement of former mansions etc. --Doncram (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "LP12" or "Leipziger Platz 12" seems to be a name for the entire Mall of Berlin historic/huge development which immediately or eventually replaced that mansion: "The Mall of Berlin is huge. But it doesn’t look like it. At least not at first sight. Because the official name of ‘LP12 Mall of Berlin’ is a little misleading. ‘LP12’ stands for Leipziger Platz 12 and it’s the address for the main entrance, if there is such a thing...." per this article on "the 12 at the octagon". --Doncram (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Friedrich Hitzig or Leipziger Platz. The address has no notability in itself and also no entry in German. Erdpferd (talk) 10:17, 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 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!} 23:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CYN The Awakening: Orlando[edit]

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

Minor event from a new organization without an article. It got routine announcements and results in the specialized websites, but no actual indepth attention. This is about the only source that gives anything beyond that, which is hardly sufficient to establish notability and maintain an article. Fram (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, and Florida. Fram (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could this be selectively merged to Ethan_Carter_III#Control_Your_Narrative_(2020–present) for the time being? The coverage is light for the organization, but it's present in places like this and this. Dunno how many shows they've done yet or not, but if there's some coverage for this specific one it could be mentioned in a sentence or two (since it's the first show). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very limited information on what seems like a not very notable professional wrestling tournament. The "Control Your Narrative" wrestling production company doesn't even have it's own article - so having an article for a singular event hosted by them would be odd. CYN itself seems to be a rather small, localized production as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A MINOTAUR (talk • contribs) 00:23, 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 delete. If there is interest in creating a draft using this article, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rakan Al-Tulayhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Single professional appearance, no substantial news coverage. agtx 18:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. agtx 18:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no significant coverage in the article and I was unable to find any during a search, including using his Arabic name. Alvaldi (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' or Draftify just started his career and is still active, and in my opinion passes GNG--Ortizesp (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: I've asked you this on several AfDs, and I'll ask again: what source convinces you of this? You may want to go back and read WP:GNG, which explains that what's required is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It seems like you're just !voting "keep" with a mention of GNG at nearly every football-related AfD. That's borderline disruptive. agtx 23:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree that GNG is met. All I can find when searching in Arabic are squad list mentions at the bottom of an article such as Thaqfny Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 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 speedy delete. CSD G4 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Mandal (Bihar Politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL, no in-depth article(s) on the subject for WP:GNG — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous instances have been deleted at AfD in April 2021 and in April 2022. Since the latter there has been a CSD G4 deletion and the Uday Mandal title is now protected against recreation. AllyD (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @AllyD. I just noticed at the same time as you ;) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latter AfD and the subsequent CSDed re-post were also authored by the same editor as the present article. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect socking here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uday88mandal — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:32, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mandal politicians[edit]

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

Very WP:SYNTHy list compiling, probably, Mandal (surname) people. Reading that surname article and this list, this is probably also a caste-based list WP:NOTDIRECTORY — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and India. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless list, only criteria I can see is a list of a few people who share the same name. Ajf773 (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a subset of Mandal (surname), surname ≠ caste. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unsourced and pointless caste-based list -- Ab207 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mandal (surname) with a different heading "Mandal politicians".Heba Aisha (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as stated above looks like unreferenced article. RS6784 (talk) 13:53, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FeltLOOM[edit]

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

Out of process mainspace move by article creator with a (disclosed) COI, so we're here. NO evidence found to indicate FeltLOOM meets any elements of corporate notability. Star Mississippi 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Kentucky. Star Mississippi 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @MrsSnoozyTurtle: Star Mississippi 16:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = This article is about what the company says about itself, rather than about what third parties have said about the company. Corporate notability depends on what third parties have written about the company. This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why the company is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. For the record, the author's claim that they have been working with me is quite misleading. Also, thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Arsalan AleBouyeh[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non notable actor and musician who fails to satisfy both WP:NACTOR & WP:SINGER respectively as they have not featured in any lead role in any movie or won any significant award and do not meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Asia, and Iran. Celestina007 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articles listed are by no means paid and promotional articles and have been written by prominent publishers and all of them are active in the field of music. According to the case you informed, the acting section was removed from the biography of this singer and composer. Please cancel the removal request. JavadShirazi696 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musician. No coverage by reliable sources exists, just paid for articles on spammy sites. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no reason to delete،Authentic sources have been used and all the rules have been observed. I have seen many articles about this person and he is very famous. – User:saramirzaei6 Talk User_talk:Saramirzaei6 21:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Saramirzaei6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (sock)[reply]
Keep: The page here is absolutely correct. Please do not delete, thank you. – User:Fatemeh956 Talk User_talk:Fatemeh956 23:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — User:Fatemeh956 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (sock)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, promotional. Sources are all press releases, advertising, or similar. Closer: note suspicious pattern of !voting on this page. agtx 21:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt given shenanigans around this and Draft:Amir Arsalan AleBouyeh. Star Mississippi 22:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet the notability requirements for actors or singers. Insufficient independent coverage by reliable sources to demonstrate sigcov. Such-change47 (talk) 05:51, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Paul Dibi[edit]

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

Article about non-notable footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in online English- or French-language sources. There is very little coverage of his career (just database entries, transfer announcements and a match report), and all of it is trivial/routine. I don't know this person's Arabic-language name, so there is a remote chance of SIGCOV there, but I doubt it because he didn't make much of an impression based on the French language sources I can find. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found Le Buteur and L'Expression but these simply verify that he exists and that he's a footballer. There's no indication of notability from what I can find and seemingly no substantial coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 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. Consensus is this content is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Star Mississippi 02:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Mauritius[edit]

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

After 13 years, we have "2" of the many people who were shown on stamps of Mauritius (one with a (??) after his name, very encyclopedic), no source (one external link), and no indication that this is in any way notable. Keeping around such crappy articles serves no purpose at all, and redirecting it is no good either as there are no other articles with info on this subject. Fram (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Mauritius. Fram (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening! Feel free to delete the article. I digressed a little when writing an article on Pierre Poivre. Cheers from Russia, --CopperKettle 15:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I agree, delete. Mauritius is important in the history of postage and stamps, to the extent that it has its own postal museum.[56] It has a number of postal "firsts", e.g. first British colony to order stamps. But its postal history is already well-covered at Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Mauritius. If anyone ever wishes to re-create a list of people on Mauritian postal stamps I'd have no objection, but there's no point in keeping the existing "list", and at the moment I'd consider it a better use of time to improve the main article. Elemimele (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not good sourcing to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information and navigational list. Completes a set. Category:Lists of people on postage stamps Can merge shorter list together perhaps, all small island nations. Dream Focus 10:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it doesn't provide information, nor navigation. It doesn't "complete" any set, it is part of a category with presumably some useful or acceptable articles, many very poor ones (unsourced or WP:OR, incomplete, ...), and many missing ones. And there is no logical connection between the people on stamps of Mauritius and, say, Tonga, Saint Helens, or the Galapagos, so a merge makes no sense either. Merging tragically bad information doesn't magically turn it into better information. Apart from that, very good arguments! Fram (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My stamp database documents at least 38 people on Mauritian stamps [57], so there is material to be added. But if the subject is intrinsically non-notable and will always be deleted, no purpose in adding them now - on that point, I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately. Stan (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't given an actual reason to keep this though. Yes, it can be expanded (even way further than what is listed on your personal site, which for some reason is used in some articles here), that still doesn't show any notability for the list topic for Mauritius. Fram (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a known common question from readers, both here and in real life - "wasn't X on a postage stamp?" "no, they are still alive, you have to be dead", "that's just the US", "oh then what country?" and the bio of X might or might not mention the stamp appearance. That's why the list goes back to the earliest days of Wikipedia, we saw people coming here for that information. There are no lack of present-day wikirules that can be used to justify deletion here, but we need to apply them to the entire category uniformly. Stan (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Hello Stan. Please refer to WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Plus, the viewing figures of these pages make it very clear that no, people don't come here for that information. Perhaps they did 15 years ago, but I doubt it. This list had one visitor every three days or so, and as we saw with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Portuguese colonies, such a list can remain empty for 13 years and no one will bat an eye, no one will try to improve it, no one cares. Fram (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Oof, my wife says the same thing about my hobbies! :-) Stan (talk) 17:55, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as sources now indicate subject is a judge of highest appellate court in India. (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala[edit]

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

This is an article for a non-notable judge that I tried to redirect to their entry at List of sitting judges of the high courts of India#Gauhati High Court, but I have been reverted by the article's author. I am therefore taking it to AfD to determine a consensus for redirect to List of sitting judges of the high courts of India#Gauhati High Court. I note that there is a recommendation that this person become a judge of the Supreme Court of India - if that appointment does happen, I think having a stand-alone article can be revisted, but there's nothing right now justifying a stand-alone article. Singularity42 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Singularity42 (talk) 13:42, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 02:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey ball[edit]

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

Disambig page better served by a hatnote, with a topic and subtopic ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The games in the Super Monkey Ball series appear to occasionally be referred to as "Monkey Ball" for short, but the term is also used for the fruits of several trees, most notably Maclura pomifera, which I've just added to the dab page. I don't see a primary topic, so the dab should stay where it is. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a little stunted as a disamb, but as Uanfala notes, primary topic is a little hard to discern here, so this should do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(this is post-restoration of the fruits, BTW) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-election pendulum for the 2022 Australian federal election[edit]

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

This seems to be only available from a blog, and not commented upon in reliable sources. Not a notable topic. Fram (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Fram (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The blog is by Antony Green, the chief election analyst for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and one of Australia's most respected electoral and political experts. This particular 2022 pendulum is published by the ABC here, and is mentioned in The Conversation. Mackerras pendulums are widely used in Australia to estimate the result of a (uniform) electoral swing, and parliaments themselves publish them: e.g.WA, Federal. --Canley (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Canley, who has it spot on. --Bduke (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Canley Deus et lex (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Canley. I have added ABC's pendulum as a citation in the article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLOG specifically notes as an exception: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Besides, other sources have been added, and I'm sure there are more out there. Mackerras pendulums are present on the articles of many Australian elections. The reason this is on a separate article is because it has been split as the main article was too long. If this were to be deleted, then the presence of Mackerras pendulums on possibly over 100 articles would have to be reconsidered. Steelkamp (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, thank you all. I'm on mobile so I won't attempt to formally close it now, too hard to get it right. Fram (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article has enough sources to be retained already, and will gain more after the election. Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 21:09, 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. ✗plicit 12:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Oresti[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has only played one game in the cup against semi-pro team Hume City FC. Simione001 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify - Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. I can't find much coverage of this footballer other than press releases from his employer like this. Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify per Jogurney. Giant Snowman 08:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - way too soon. Does not yet have the required coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Lacks significant coverage but has the potential to recieve it later. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 09:01, 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 12:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff M Maurer[edit]

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

Minor third-party candidate with no claim of notability in this article, which is basically a resume. No additional sources to support such a claim could be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Indiana, and New York. Alansohn (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As clearly lacking any claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless he wins the election he will not be notable. Unelected candidates are almost never notable. I would challenge anyone to produce any case where someone who was candidate for a statewide office other than governor was notable for running for the office alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he doesn't win, the Secretary of State race is the race the grants ballot access to parties. When Don Rainwater ran for Governor in 2020 he came in second in a third of the counties in Indiana. Had that race been a ballot access race, the Libertarian Party would have replaced the Democratic Party in choosing Precinct Committeeman for those counties. If Jeff does as well, or better, the party is on the way to becoming the #2 party in Indiana.NOTA1994 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly lacks significant coverage. Written like a resume. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:15, 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 delete. Consensus is the sourcing does not meet requirements for corporate notability. Star Mississippi 02:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aspial Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, extensively UPE edited, not finding any coverage other than fund-raising & sales puff pieces. Cabayi (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Singapore. Cabayi (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing is way below notability level. Seems to have been a magnet for promo and spamming entries about one particular jewellery firm since the start. I can find nothing of worth in searches. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NCORP not met. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see multiple news articles here about the company, such as this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - every one of those appears to be self-published or press releases. I can't see one where an independent sources is discussing the company. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of them are self-published as they come from The Straits Times, tabla!, Berita Harian, The Business Times, The New Paper, Streats and today, none of which are affiliated with this company, and I fail to see how every single one of them are press releases. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source seems to be a sponsored content or in partnership with Spring Singapore. Despite being a digital media term, native advertising isn't a new concept actually. – robertsky (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources linked say they are published in the "Advertisements Column". Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I might not have chosen the best of examples. That still doesn't change the fact that there are still dozens of other sources found here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found sources to support its notability given that it had significant secondary coverage over a long period of time. Note that most of these sources may not be directly available via NewspaperSG from home (due to licensing agreement between NLB and the publisher), however editors holding NLB membership (typically Singapore residents) are able to access these articles via Newslink database, which is accessible after logging into through NLB, and then clicking on 'Newslink' link. I have rewritten the article and still is, but essentially the prior promotional content have been stripped. – robertsky (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Striking keep vote after reading through HighKing and Cabayi's follow-up. – robertsky (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: copy of the sources can be made available via email or discord (direct message) upon request. – robertsky (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I am reinstating my keep vote. Aspial is synonymous to many of their subsidiaries. Aspial is created on the backs of Lee Hwa Jewellry. Thus Lee Hwa is intergral in the history of Aspial. The takeover of LCD Developments is covered throughout the process and it wasn't an one-off reporting. Although it is not stated in the article yet, World Class Global and Aspial are frequently stated in news report in Australia, particular in Cairns where there has been a failed development that lingered for 7 years before being cancelled. Srcs: [58] [59] I just dug it up, and have yet to process the reports into a suitable prose. These may be just simply 'business decisions', but they are covered in secondary and reliable sources, and are not just simply interviews or press releases, thus fulfilling the GNG. There may be separate questions such as should these subsidiaries have their own articles, (vis-a-vis Sea Ltd and Garena), but I think this is a content issue and should be debated in the article talk pages. – robertsky (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is really just an opinion with zero support in our guidelines. You mention "thus fulfilling the GNG" when the appropriate WP:SNG is WP:NCORP. You provide some "reasoning" but realistically, it is really WP:OR and you haven't provided links to any references that support your "reasoning" and meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. You say that some of your "reasoning" is "covered in secondary and reliable sources" but the primary test is the content of the articles, not the credentials of the publisher, and while some may not be "simply interviews or press releases", none meet NCORP's criteria. You've said you disagree with my evaluation of sources but after some days now, you've failed to point to any particular reference which you believe meets the standard required. This all starts and ends with references. If you think there are references that meet the criteria, link them, point out the paragraphs/sections that meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and then we'll have something concrete to discuss. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per robertsky's rewrite of the article, passes GNG now. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, lets start by picking the appropriate guideline. Since this is a company/organization NCORP guidelines apply which describes 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.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Invariably all of the articles either write about the activities of Lee Hwa, the founder, which is not the topic of this article and/or rely on interviews/information provided by the company or their executives and do not contain in-depth information and "Independent Content" about *the company*. In fact, not one of the articles focuses on the actual company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing, your evaluation is based on the rewrite or the version before the rewrite? I differ on the evaluation of the sources, most are in depth and are of the actual company. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my evaluation took place after the rewrite. On the evaluation of the sources, any in-depth information on the company must be *clearly* attributed to a source unaffiliated with the company. Most references are either based entirely on company announcements or feature the CEO (including interview/quotes). Once you discount this information, there is very little left and not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky, none of the claims (even after the rewrite) rise to notability - "first opened", "had 12 retail outlets", "reduced its selling price", "the company went on to be listed", "it acquired", "it licensed", "it changed its name", "it purchased", "Aspial started ... a pawnbroking business", "contended in a takeover battle", "spin off" - they're all about the company's financing, ownership and normal business activities. What's notable? Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted – robertsky (talk) 11:16, 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 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neotek[edit]

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

Hi, first time starting an AFD here. While doing anti-vandal work and tracing the steps of a vandal, I came across their newcomer edits on this article that has had a flurry of newcomer task activity in the last week. Upon a further look, I found that the article has no RS, as some have brought up on the talk page. There might also be some kind of copyright violation going on here with last.fm. A Google and Google News search for "Neotek" only brings up various industrial companies (lighting, car parts, and music consoles) also named Neotek, and I can't find any RS on "Neotek band". A quick look at the page history will also reveal that the article was started by a member of the band in 2009, which is clearly COI. Said band member declares COI on another band article which didn't make it out of AFC. Overall I can't find anything to indicate that this band passes WP:NMUSIC, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Blue Edits (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found - most of it is not sourced and the only ref is a short paragraph about them. Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the original content was about a "manufacturer of recording consoles for professional recording studios". The part about the band was added by User:Cybersen, who seems to be affiliated with the band. Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Oh, you're right-- it seems I didn't make it all the way to the start of the page history. For onlookers, the article was created in 2006, and taken over by User:Cybersen in 2009. The original article (about the consoles) was a stub tagged with an advertisement template, and also lacked any sources. The consoles do seem to be in use, but I can't find any RS focusing on them (beyond brief mentions) in Google News either. Blue Edits (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you search for the band in conjunction with the names of various members, a few brief album reviews from their country pop up, such as: [60]. But I can find nothing journalistic or significant about their history. The "original version" suggested by a voter above was for a device of the same name and is irrelevant for this discussion. Except for the occasional very brief review, the band is only visible at the usual directory sites, plus a blank Allmusic entry at [61]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:02, 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. Based on the comments in the discussion, this seems like the most suitable compromise that reflects the majority of viewpoints. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Paul Terrier[edit]

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

It's a bogus breed, (created by a notorious sock puppeteer), fails WP:V and WP:GNG. This dog was never a bona fide breed (purportedly existed in the 1800s), its origins are unknown according to the small amount of information available in the 2 cited doggy books, and as a dog-type the 2 sources claim that it is probably the result of a bull and terrier cross. This WP article has given this fictitious dog life, and that is embarrassing. Atsme 💬 📧 10:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for the claim that the breed is bogus? Are you claiming that the two sources for the article are bogus or that they state that the breed is? I don't have access to the text of Harris but Meyrick certainly refers to it as a genuine breed. If reliable sources are mistaken, that they are noting as genuine a fictitious breed, seems of note in itself. All dog breeds are the result of... breeding. Anything not supported by the sources, whether added by the sock or not, can and should be removed but, if the sources were added by the sock, they still stand on their own merits, not those of the editor who added them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP is an encyclopedia, not a doggy book or internet site that perpetuates myths about non-existent "breeds" based only on anecdotal evidence, rumor, and misunderstandings of how purebred dog breeds are developed, or what constitutes a "breed". What we do know for certain prior to the formation of reputable breed registries is that all dogs descended from wolves Canus lupus. What we have in this case is a mouse-gray colored dog with "mysterious origins" that in all likelihood is just another pit bull-type or bull and terrier hybrid cross with no established breed standard, no foundation pedigree, no official recognition as a breed, and probably a descendant of the bull and terrier crosses of the mid-1800s; aka the progeny of a heterogeneous group of dogs - (common sense required here). Please read Bull and terrier for more information about how those crosses were developed, all of which is cited to multiple RS, and leading experts of dog breeds. The photograph used in this article comes from this unreliable source. WP requires multiple secondary RS to satisfy WP:N, and even then there is no guarantee of inclusion. The information must also pass WP:V, especially for fringe claims born of anecdotes such as is this one. Even David Harris on pg 30 of The Bully Breeds stated..."The origins of these blue dogs are shrouded in uncertainty"; on page 31 he stated: "But the fable continued with periodic reports of Blue Pauls in both Scotland and Ireland." It's as much a fable as are leprechauns. Atsme 💬 📧 16:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're forthcoming PROD of leprechaun will similarly be a challenge then.

Do you see the point? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the recent sources added to the article, it appears you may have misunderstood the context of those sources, incorrectly believing they support your position when in fact they support what I've been saying; i.e., the dog is not a breed. Those sources describe a bull and terrier mixed breed of dog that is mouse grey in color, not a purebred dog that breeds true. They also state that it's origins are unknown and were not notable.

A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland–The Terriers (pg 89–90) Chapter: The Black and Tan Terrier – the author clearly states Mr. Thomson Gray, in his " Dogs of Scotland," mentions a dog called the Blue Paul, and earlier writers had also drawn attention to the same animal. I certainly refuse to acknowledge him as a variety, and consider him identical with the " blue terrier bred from " black and tans." ^{moved underlined text to Bull Terrier below – apologies for transposing quotes 21:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)}
The Bull Terrier (pg 63–66) The Blue Paul – the author clearly states ...and that practically no one of our present fancy had either heard of him or cared to hear about him. For the past few years in research on the breed, I have discovered only a few breeders who had even heard of this curious branch of the tree, and especially in view of the new interest in colored Bull Terriers and in color-bred whites, this Blue Paul must have meant a good deal, although all indications are that his pedigrees were not carefully kept and are almost–or at least I have found it so–impossible either to trace or verify. The dog was not even notable during the time it supposedly existed, and it is certainly not notable now that it is purportedly extinct. The article also states: The Blue Paul was described by various authors such as Cameron, Garrew, Gray and others as a bulldog-like terrier,.... which is why I redirected it to Bull and terrier. It was never a bona fide breed.
^{Adding: 01:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)}House Dogs and Sporting Dogs (1861...Mpg 31-32...John Meyrick) – Is a dog known only among the dog-fanciers of London, and I believe that the original breed is now either extinct or extremely rare; but the strain is still highly valued. The 3rd paragraph of 3 total short paragraphs in the entire book go on to say...There is an odd story very general among the fancy, that the original breed was brought to this country by Paul Jones, the pirate. The breed was formerly to be met with in Scotland. Excuse me, but with all due respect, if this and the other examples above are what WP is using to include stand-alone articles as passing GNG and V, I'll just stick to my day job; i.e., retirement. ^{Atsme 💬 📧 01:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

I am also concerned that OR and SYNTH is being used, inadvertently or otherwise, to make it appear this dog is/was a bona fide breed, when it clearly was not. At most, it may have been another bull and terrier hybrid of unknown pedigree that may or may not be mouse grey in color, and was used to fight in the pits. As I pointed out above, the authors of the cited books clearly confirm that it is a type of dog, not a verifiable breed. Atsme 💬 📧 02:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have good citations for the dog not being a true breed, perhaps you could add that info in another section on the page. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite.

If, as you say, "the authors of the cited books clearly confirm that it is a type of dog", you have no issue with the existence of the article. Whether that type of dog is classed a “verifiable breed” is immaterial. We only require that the topic is verifiable as a topic.

I added sources because they discuss the topic, verifying the existence of that topic and indicate that, by its discussion, it is notable as a topic. That you believe an editor should add sources to support a prior “position” is telling. (That you believe an editor should add text to an article to state that the subject’s “nature as a distinct variety (is) disputed”, supported by a source which states “I certainly refuse to acknowledge him (the Blue Paul) as a variety” to advance the contrary position that it is a distinct variety is bizarre. What is notable is the discussion of the matter and that there is a difference of opinion about it.)

If a thing is a thing and has coverage, particularly in multiple reliable sources, that supports its notability, be that, in this example, according to the construct of what constitutes a bona fide "pedigree" "breed" as stipulated by a 21st century American dog organisation, a no-doubt less formal coining in Scotland and the wider UK of the 19th century, a thing that is noted historically but nobody is really sure about any more, a mythical creature or is an outright fabrication and fraud. Whichever it is, according to the evident sources, reflect that in the article. Much of the coverage of Blue Pauls seems to be about their disputed nature, so let's cover that. Leprechauns are not a "bona fide breed" but it is appropriate they have an article because they are verifiably a notable folkloric phenomenon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feels very Quazer Beast-like in its current version. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Bull and terrier rather than delete. After nearly a week of intense research, I have come to the conclusion that either would be an ok option. Based on the few cited sources, it appears the dog's color is why it was considered unique during its time in the pits, but color is not a "breed". The sources conflict with each other in that one author believes it is a full-blooded terrier derived from the Black and Tan Terrier, whereas other authors believe it is a mixed breed resulting from a cross between bulldogs and terriers. The fact that the dog doesn't exist (claimed to be extinct) and the pedigree is unknown, undocumented, and based entirely on anecdotal information, referring to it as a "breed", which is actually a myth, would be an embarrassment for any encyclopedic project. I don't mind either way what consensus decides as long as it is something other than leaving it as a standalone article that doesn't meet the requirements for GNG or V. Atsme 💬 📧 20:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect I also choose merge or redirect. I also reiterate that four sources (2 links, 2 hardcopy) is not enough for an article. I did a search looking for articles; they all say the same thing: the dog was not a breed, was vague in mention, or was an extinct breed. This is an issue for GNG and V. Also to think of Due Weight, the current sources are not enough to prop up an article; they are more suited to mentions used for small weight. Additionally, the issue of the Leprauchan is not a valid analogy as to there is no article without the supposed breed. No sources and no name. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you are saying about the leprechaun analogy, despite having read the sentence several times. There definitely (and appropriately) is a leprechaun article and they definitely do not exist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was about the leprechaun analogy, not about the lepracaun article. Without the Blue Paul breed and the few sources that exist, there is no dog for there to be a dog article or topic as you described it. (No lepracaun - no dog via the analogy). What article or topic can someone write about the Blue Paul as a topic saying you can include it without the breed, no you can't do it. The name is the so called breed name. All the sources refer to the Blue Paul and Blue Poll. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No the analogy is, as you seek to characterise it, "no leprechaun - no article", which we, quite rightly, do not apply. Sources cover the subject, then so do we. That sources deny the existence of the leprechaun or cast doubt on the existence of some dog, as existent sources discussing the topic, they support the notability of the subject as much as if they were supporting its tangible existence. Its tangible existence is no requirement - we just follow the source to state it doesn't tangibly exist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The refactoring of talk page posts, particularly after they have been responded to by other users is regarded as poor practice and to be avoided. The extent of these changes is so significant that I frankly can not follow how they might "differently represent" the user's points and the responses to them. This is regrettable and an experienced editor really should know better. Anyone reading this thread should bear in mind that it has been altered in a problematic fashion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read refactoring "how to", which is actually a recommended process. Also, read the edit summaries in sequence and you will see that I simply corrected an inadvertent transposition of 2 sources & quotes. And then I simply organized my list of sources with respective quotes from each...in context. I did not remove anything beyond simple copy editing type errors on my part. That's why it's called "editing". My actions did not change the meaning of anything, rather it corrected the citations and organized things for easy reading. All of my edits are dated and explained in the edit summaries and on the TP, which requires a few seconds of reading. Atsme 💬 📧 23:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find that "Refactoring" in this case did not cause an issue for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by dawnleelynn (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~ Keep or Merge The reasons being given for the nomination are fundamentally misconceived. The implication that 19th century sources are invalid is unsound. The validity of a topic to be the subject of an article relies on its being covered in reliable sources, not on how those sources classify it. That the sources discuss the subject is the marker for inclusion, whether, in this example, they discuss it to classify it as a breed (as at least one does) or they discuss it to deny that it is. Indeed, the nebulous and disputed nature of the subject is arguably the most significant reason for its coverage in the various sources. Sources cover this topic, so we report that and we say what they say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my reticence about a merge is, due to the variety of possible origins and classifications given in the various sources, there are several potential contradictory choices for any merge, i.e, bull and terrier, bull terrier, black and tan terrier. I'm unsure if it is correct or quite this simple but if bull and terrier is demonstrably generic,* a merge there may be an acceptable alternative to keeping the article as a standalone. And this if the cited material in this standalone article is merged in full. Hence I've amended my recommendation from keep to keep or merge.

(*not using the term biologically here of course as these are breeds and other sub-classifications of a species) Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per above, it hardly beats SIGCOV on its own. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, let's talk notability. In WP, we do not cover a thing because it's a thing. Let's get that straight first. I think everyone actually agrees with that in their core beliefs. So we ask, does this article pass WP:GNG or WP:SNG? And let's not forget WP:V. Do we have enough significant, reliable secondary sources? Because that's where I believe this article fails. See WP:NRV. There is not a set number of sources that say yes or no. It varies with the sources themselves. I once wrote a short article with only 5 sources. But those were 5 halls of fame sources. In another article, 5 might be far from enough sources. I have worked on an AfD that was deleted even though the film had about 20 sources. Many of the sources were just similar advertising. The sources in this AfD are few and short on content. Definitely not enough to prop up this article. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to get straight something that nobody is advocating? If I've missed it, could you point it out to me please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All what these sources have in common is that they are doing speculation. A source that speculates about something without being able to or willing to substantiate it is not reliable in that context.Lurking shadow (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The basis in policy for this declaration being? The reporting in a reliable source of the dubious or speculative nature of something is no different to reliably sourced reporting in general. See leprechauns, above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:56, 16 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 12:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeetha V[edit]

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

Poorly-referenced article on a non-notable actor. Sources cited don't come even close to RS sigcov, and a search finds nothing beyond social media etc. Was declined three times at AfC, but creator moved this to main space regardless. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator keeps moving the article, so apologies in advance if something goes awry because of this. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lists roles in multiple films, but none of the roles is sufficiently important to be mentioned even in passing in any of the sources for the film articles. That includes her roles in Parris Jeyaraj and Master (2021 film) which according to the article are the ones she is best known for. Name spamming in film and TV show cast lists is a thing, unfortunately. --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of having "significant" roles to meet WP:NACTOR or independent coverage for GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 13:53, 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 keep. Didn't wait for an administrator to close the XFD, considering the number of 'Keep' votes the article has received. (non-admin closure) Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of online videos[edit]

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

Is there a need for such an article? Should it have been CSD or PROD? Couldn't determine it, so thought a discussion might be a better option. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing all the list of this type, is a valid reason for a list article to exist. Dream Focus 09:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You haven't shown how this is any less significant than other Mass Media lists of lists. SentientObject (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because if the lists that are listed are worth keeping, then this list of them is a useful navigational aid. But I must admit, I am not a fan of Wikipedia keeping lists of most-watched YouTube videos and other such statistics, as they are invariably based on primary data, not secondary, they are open to wild manipulation, and the reader would do better, if they love such things, to go directly to YouTube etc. Elemimele (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful for navigation. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:32, 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 no consensus. This is a complicated one beyond the typical sports ones as we have the issue of what can reasonably be expected, sourcing wise, from a team that played so long ago. That said, the keeps are not particularly strong in their policy basis. With two relists that generated no input, I don't see a third establishing consensus. Before this comes back to AfD I'd suggest seeing if it can be handled editorially, possibly via a merger target as was mentioned. Star Mississippi 02:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Mark's F.C. (Windsor)[edit]

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

Short-lived school club which ended up not playing in a notable competition, and which may have had one later international player in their ranks, perhaps (though I couldn't verify this). Lacks reliable, indepth sources about the club Fram (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think any club which entered the FA Cup is worthy of inclusion - especially as there were two other St Mark's clubs around at the time (Guild and College) who could be confused for the Windsor club. Arthur Bambridge was listed as a St Mark's player in the reports of the Essex-Berkshire FA match of January 1877 and the Berkshire-Buckinghamshire FA matches of January 1877 and February 1878 (as well as in a school match against the Philberds school in March 1877). The Bambridge brothers all seem to have gone to the school so it was a formative influence on a footballing dynasty. In Vitrio (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being "worthy of inclusion" only depends on the attention a subject gets in reliable sources over a sustained period. E.g. it was recently affirmed that for individual sporters, even playing at the Olympics isn't sufficient on its own to merit inclusion, if we don't have further, indepth information. Fram (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair though there are tens of thousands of Olympic competitors. There were only 43 entrants to the FA Cup that year. There is little quintessential difference between a club withdrawing if it thinks it is overmatched and turning up for a 16-0 thrashing (Farningham). Nearly every FA Cup "proper rounds" participant has a wikipedia page (I am trying to catch up with those without - there are some locally notable names in that category at the moment) and it would be a little lopsided if this were the only club without one. Especially as it is that rare anomaly; a school team entering the FA Cup (I think there were only ever two others). In Vitrio (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Imperial Service College. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. There might be merit in a list or article about the history of association football in England in the 1860s/1870s, where this club can be mentioned and redirected to, but in the absence of that it should be deleted (or draftified).— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be original research, surely? One of 43 FA Cup entrants makes them as notable as a team in the Championship today. In Vitrio (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this club would be the biggest pass of WP:FOOTYN I've ever seen at AFD. I'm surprised we are here, and I'm not sure what's driving User:Fram to challenge such long-standing consensus. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that Footyn is an essay, nothing more, and that this club hasn't played in the cup so doesn't even meet that essay anyway? Fram (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They entered the 1877–78 FA Cup, but it was a Walkover for Barnes F.C.. FootyN is an essay - but it has has reflected consensus in the project for over a decade. Nfitz (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't play in the FA Cup, which was the minimum requirement even for that very loose essay. considering that actual guidelines have recently been shown to no lionger have the consensus of the broader community of editors, as they were too inclusive, it seems strange to try to defend this article by pointing to an essay which never made it to guideline in the first place, and where the article doesn't even meet the requirements anyway. Even if they had played though; playing in a cup which is open to any club ( as it was at the time, no league requirements) does not grant any automatic or even presumed notability. Fram (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're applying an anachronistically too high a standard for this era. To enter the Cup at this time a club had to be an FA member, which suggests a level of organisation and regularity. There are at least a dozen clubs currently in the Premier/EFL today who were in existence in 1877, yet none of them entered the FA Cup; St Mark's were ahead of all of them in terms of looking at national competition. The highest club today who did enter was Notts County. I don't think notoriety criteria for other sports (there do not seem to be any for football at the moment) really work for the pre-professional era. In Vitrio (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, at least as best as a club from that time could.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, but also no real presentation of sources indicating significant coverage, needs more time to allow arguments related to GNG rather than personal opinion or local consensus to be established, but claims of notability per WP:FOOTYN are not grounded in any policy or guideline
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:40, 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) 07:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Over the last 8 years since the original AfD discussion, little has been done to improve this list. In my opinion it is a posterchild for WP:COATRACK as that is the premise of the article, an indiscriminate listing of the progression of events during and following Katrina. While a monumental event, the detail potential usefulness of this article is pretty limited. Over the last 90 days, this list has averaged just 47 daily views compared to the primary article's 2,531 daily average, indicating very limited interest in it. Some of the other sub-articles of niche interest have fewer views, they adequately expand upon content in a meaningful way. While there are innumerable sources covering Hurricane Katrina in the nearly 17 years since it happened, a timeline of these events ending just two months after really doesn't serve much purpose. The important aspect of these events can be soundly covered in the numerous other (probably excessive) sub-articles related to the topic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:DP, number of visits not an appropriate reason for deletion. ---- GTNO6 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anemic WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTNEWS article with a lot of WP:NOTSTATS cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of this article is unclear, particularly in the post-storm part. The writing is also poor and disorganized. I cannot imagine this will be any more useful to readers than the main article on the storm and its meteorological history article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whichever events are significant enough to be included in here (and determining that alone will be enough to spark a big debate) are already going to be in at least one of the numerous subarticles, and throwing them all together with no context or structure is not helpful to readers in any way. In short: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same rationale as my delete vote last time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. That the nominator has done little to improve the page is not a valid deletion reason, nor (as Cyclonebiskit correctly notes) is the number of views. The consensus at the prior AfD found that this was an acceptable WP:SPINOUT of Hurricane Katrina—in other words, the Hurricane Katrina article would simply be too big to incorporate all of the encyclopedic content that is relevant. And the topic itself passes WP:GNG: USA Today, National Geographic, PBS News, The Guardian, Deseret News, the AP, and many others have provided significant coverage of the chronology of Katrina (including, at minimum, its near aftermath).
Arguments for deletion above (besides the erroneous nomination) includes the vaguest of WP:VAGUEWAVEs (arguments in which the editor provides no motivation for citing particular shortcuts), an argument that the content of the article is not well-organized and that the scope of the aftermath of Katrina is unclear, and an argument that the coverage is already going to be somewhere else on Wikipedia. I don't feel a need to respond to the vaguest of vague waves, since it contributes little to the discussion. With respect to the argument that the article is poorly written and its scope is unclear: the scope of the article is made quite clear from sources (which tend to terminate their timelines at around the same time) and that the article content can be improved through editing is not a valid deletion reason per WP:DEL-CONTENT. Similarly, if the nominator is concerned that editors are inserting unrelated information (a-la-WP:COATRACK) and that this will be contentious to remove (a-la-KN2731), then they could try to remove the information through editing before making a declaration that the article cannot be salvaged; editing is certainly possible and it does not appear to have been attempted based upon the page's edit history. And, the nominator's argument that The important aspect of these events can be soundly covered in the numerous other (probably excessive) sub-articles related to the topic supports a merge not a deletion.
Overall, the arguments for deletion are not based in policy and largely should be discarded along those lines, while the article clearly meets the relevant notability guideline. Against this background, the policy-based arguments support keeping the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t believe there is much (if any) content that doesn’t exist in one of the myriad other Katrina articles, which already discuss the storm history, the evacuations, the damage, the political effects, and Hurricane Rita. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mhawk. The proponent did not bring valid arguments for elimination, and the article is properly referenced. WP:COATRACK is an essay, that is to say that the text reflects only the conviction of some editors, with no consensus on its application in the community. In addition number of visits not an appropriate reason for deletion, per WP:DP. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the argument that the content exists in other articles? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I addressed this in my argument. On its face, the assertion that the content exists elsewhere is an argument for a merge and/or a redirect, not deletion. Also, can you point to the article that this is a duplicate of? I'm not able to find one. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC
    - Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Preparations for Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina disaster relief, Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, Reconstruction of New Orleans. All of these are in-depth topics that go into much more detail than this timeline, which stops around 37 days after the storm. All of those other articles cover the period well beyond October 2005 (and some of the 17 years since then), much better than this incomplete and redundant timeline. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mhawk10 (talk · contribs)'s strong arguments. Mhawk10 has shown that "timeline of Hurricane Katrina" passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says (my bolding):
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
Timeline of Hurricane Katrina is a chronological list of "the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it" (quoting from the how-to guide Wikipedia:Timeline). It is not a duplicate of any other article because no other article aims to present a chronological history of Hurricane Katrina. I view the timeline article as complementary to all the other articles.
The article is well-sourced but can be further improved through more sourcing (as some parts of it are unsourced) and through expansion to cover a longer time period. The article's deficiencies are not a policy-based reason for deletion. From Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."
I am also supporting retention per Postdlf (talk · contribs), who wrote this in 2014 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina:
what the nominator sees a minus—that this combines, in chronological order, information found at multiple articles on Katrina—I see as a plus. A timeline is going to be most useful when it can condense an important sequence of events that are divided over multiple articles (I count at least eighteen articles just about Katrina and its aftermath), and where that sequence is of utmost importance to the subject. What happened when, in terms of the development and track of the storm, preparation efforts, when levees broke and areas were flooded, and what the rescue effort and other response was at each stage, etc., etc., is critical to an understanding of Katrina scientifically and historically. Really all we have here from the nomination and the sole "delete" !vote so far is the mistaken belief that "content forks" are an inherently bad thing and complaints about mere cleanup issues.
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also believe that a wiki page does not deserve to be deleted based on view counts as previously mentioned. The point of Wikipedia is to be a Encyclopedia of knowledge, not to count how many views a page gets. The argument also does not go into detail of why the article is unable to be salvaged in it's current state. No article is perfect and that's why people have to ability fix and or change pages make the information better for the topic in hand. Knowledge should always tried to be saved as a default. Hurricane Katrina happened almost 17 years ago, which makes a bigger reason to protect this page as lots of this info would be lost if a deletion happened. Until there is more reason to delete this page, the page is still fixable by future edits, even if there hasn't been any for a while. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator request for withdrawal — While I still believe there is little use for this article, the arguments put forth by those in favor of keeping are convincing that there might be some merit to this article and outright deletion is not the correct course of action. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:58, 15 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 12:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Close[edit]

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

Article is written like advertisement Deppty (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deppty (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - the article does have issues, but being written like an advertisement isn't one of them. XtraJovial (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has some issues including contradictory information about where he was born, inconsistent naming, unconventional organizations, over reliance on primary sources. I've edited to address those issues. He seems notable. I think now it's good to stay up. CT55555 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The topic seems generally notable. Passes WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE CT55555 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Reasonably well sourced for a subject from a country with media less well-known to American readers. BD2412 T 00:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, please look at the recent changes in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The singer has coverage from some credible secondary sources. Passes WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources present in the article show that the individual passes GNG. Draftification is not a backdoor to deletion and, while it might be tempting to take this out of the mainspace to work on it, I don't think it's likely that draftifying the article will result in anything but its deletion in about six months. Since when editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, I think that the article should be kept and improved to bring it up-to-standards. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:25, 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 no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 12:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fa11on[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to be notable in her own right. Article is a BLP nightmare. Unbh (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 11:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 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!} 06:44, 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 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. Consensus is the prize he won does not establish notability, nor does sourcing. I don't see a 3rd relist changing this, but happy to consider this a soft deletion given relatively minimal input. Star Mississippi 02:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Reid Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Claims to fame are greatly exaggerated and/or do not pass WP:BAND. Sourcing is WP:PRIMARY or passing name-drops. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Isn't winning a major music competition enough to justify notability per WP:MUSICBIO #9? I believe other sources could likely be found, but am happy to be proven wrong. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that one is considered "major". It doesn't have an article or even have a website anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a major music award called the Wihuri Sibelius Prize, but Mr. Williams won a different one called simply "Sibelius Prize (previously known as the Overall Prize)" which does not meet the requirements of a major award seen at WP:NMUSICBIO, criteria #8-9. I wonder if the organizers (re-)named this competition after a famous musician just to make it look more important. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mr. Williams has built a career as a session musician and songwriter for others, while occasionally releasing his own music, but unfortunately that keeps him a few steps away from independent notability in his own right. Also note that notability is not inherited from the notable people that he has backed. He has a few awards but they don't appear to be "major" (see the discussion above). As a trusty journeyman musician, he has made his mark behind the scenes but there's just not enough for his own encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 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!} 06:30, 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 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!} 23:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Szibilla Margó Bakó[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources to show notability for this artist. It was created in 2011 and now is out of date with dead links. The current sources are primary, with one of the sources being a Facebook page and the other failing verification. There does not seem to be a way to bring this up to notable. Perhaps someone who speak Hungarian can find that there are some awards or charting. She seems to be a visual artist and musician. I think the article should be deleted. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I changed my search settings to Hungarian and found one interview, so of course mostly primary, but some secondary content. It's a music blog, so not the worst, but hardly the best. I also found a book that she wrote or translated and added that in. It's not solving the issues raised, but it does leave the article in slightly better shape. CT55555 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 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!} 06:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see what would elevate her above the average blogger. Nowhere near WP:SIGCOV.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a list of PRESS items on her website here, however I am unable to determine the quality of these possible sources. What we need is an editor fluent in Hungarian and the cultural scene there. Anyone know of possible editors we might ping? My gut feeling is that she may be notable. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 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 12:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy 4K Television[edit]

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

This has been moved past AfC to mainspace, redraftified, and moved again, so let's see what the good folks at AfD make of it. Of the sources cited, the first one (NepaliTelecom) provides reasonable coverage, but is primary. The second (OnlineKhabar) mostly talks about 4K TV as a concept. The rest provide only passing mentions. Search finds nothing more than social media sites, programme listings, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Nepal. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is also cited by the source (Nepalnews) and provides coverage about the inauguration from the prime minister from nepal. Beauterflyy (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being an nepali news site, it lacks mentions being a competor to the other news television and sites. That prevents it from getting a huge coverage as it should have. Lutiness (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity spam bordering on a hoax created by several xwiki locked socks. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does this really have to be explained in that much detail? Doesn't look very legit to me. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly recommend that, draft will be a good option rather then delete as on later date it would be notable. This television was introduced by highly recognized boardcast journalist Rabi Lamichhane. Stated references in this article wasn't enough to show notability beacuse it was newly introduced television channel in Nepal as it takes time to be notable in near future as it has only primary and relaible sources where it lacks independent sources. This television channel have not enough coverage in media as well. (Note:Being a Nepalese wikiedian I am not promoting this channel.) Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, this has already been draftified and re-draftified. But when the creating editors insist on moving it back into the main space, IMO they forfeit the right to draftification once the AfD process starts. Besides, there's no way of knowing that this would be notable at any point in the future, much less so within the c. 6 months that drafts are kept. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can request this draft for protection as only administrator or extended confirmed user could move this draft into main article space and Thank you for your opinion. Fade258 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. And as per Fade258 above, as it takes time to be notable in near future means it isn't notable now, which is what we care about. Come back when it is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 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 keep. The sourcing identifies counters the nom as well as the delete !vote. If editors believe it should in fact be redirected, that decision can be made editorially. Star Mississippi 02:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzz![edit]

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

Only found a couple press releases. Zero hits on GNews, GBooks, or TelevisionWeek archives. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 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?)} 19:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tribune Entertainment#First-run syndicated shows Remember the show, but it barely got any press coverage outside its premiere. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rosenberg, Howard (1997-03-12). "So You Thought TV Couldn't Get Any Worse?". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "For more evidence of severe dementia, try the syndicated “Bzzz!” At least “Pauly” is fiction performed by actors. But people on “Bzzz!” embarrass themselves as themselves, from annoying host Annie Wood to the contestants in their 20s who, in their own yuppie way, are nearly as witless as the human bricks available on the worst of daytime talk shows. ... “Bzzz!” is essentially a remake of “The Dating Game,” in which contestants select suitors based on their answers to inane questions such as: ... The show’s stupidity is relentless, seeming all the more so in Los Angeles because it airs weeknights on KTLA-TV Channel 5 in a time slot preceding reruns of NBC’s “Seinfeld,” a series as intelligently written and executed as “Bzzz!” is inane and insipid."
2. Porter, Evette (1996-11-26). "The Match Games. The New Dating Game. Bzzz!. The Big Date". The Village Voice. p. 82. ProQuest 232161369.
  The article notes: "Bzzz! is equally superficial, if more manic. The show's premise, and thus its name, has something to do with being able to zap a really bad blind date. If only it were that easy. Annie Wood, the shows frenetic host—a Tori Spelling look-alike who's fond of décolletage—does a fair imitation of Jenny McCarthy. But the pace of the show is maddening. Potential dates—four this time—remain silhouetted behind a screen, reading their bios from a TelePrompTer. Then there's a two-minute speed round where they answer questions like: "What color are you feeling right now?" "Red, 'cause it's really hot!" Next, the contestants and their chosen ones move on to the "simpatico" round. Finally, after "Final Bzzz!,' the couple with the highest simpatico score wins. Bzzz! apparently doesn't have quite the budget some of the other dating shows do—the maximum prize money is $500, which few couples earn, and dinner is at a local restaurant."
3. Brennan, Steve (1996-08-27). "'Bzzz!' gets plenty of dates". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 343, no. 40. p. 6. ProQuest 2362060084.
  The article notes: "A successful test run for Tribune Entertainment's relationship game show "Bzzz!" on Tribune's flagship KTLA-TV in Los Angeles in February has helped boost sales of the series for national syndication to 14 of the top 15 markets. The dating show featuring comedian Annie Wood is cleared in 65 markets representing 82% of the country that includes the reach of Tribune's superstation WGN-TV in Chicago."
4. Van Tassel, Joan (1996-01-25). "TV reviews: BZZZ". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340, no. 40. p. 18. ProQuest 2467899586.
  The review notes: ""Beverly Hills, 90210" meets "The Dating Game" — and it looks like they'll live happily for a good long time in local living rooms. The show exhibits little of the opening week jitters expected in a debut. Femme host Annie Wood is bright, bubbly, and personable — a new addition to the long line of comic blondes like Mae West, Jean Harlow, and Joan Davis. She's a find. The contestants are attractive twentysomethings ready to strut their stuff in the video meet market. Wood stands with a chooser who hears from prospective dates masked in shadow. He or she picks them to come out and have a short talk or perform some stunt, like one fellow who stood on his hands while speaking German."
5. Kimmel, Daniel M. (1996-11-06). "'Bzzz!' host abuzz on her upbeat job". Telegram & Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: ""Bzzz!" follows the usual rules. Through suggestive questions and answers, the contestant wins the opportunity to have a date with someone they have to select before they actually meet. Much more interesting than the contest is host Annie Wood, who passed through Boston recently and told the tale of how she went from nobody to game show host. ... "Bzzz!" was tested earlier this year on the West Coast and went into national syndication this fall, where it seems to be finding an audience."
6. Hontz, Jenny (1997-04-14). "'O'Boyle,' 'Bzzz!' on the brink". Variety. Vol. 366, no. 11. p. 39. ProQuest 1286128396.
  The article notes: "Tribune Entertainment's relationship gameshow "Bzzz!," already downgraded in New York and Chicago, was excluded from a recent Mediaweek ad pitching the company's shows that have ad time being sold in the upfront market. ... Sources repping Trib say don't count "Bzzz!" out entirely: Show host Annie Wood was flown to Mip to sell it overseas."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bzzz! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Subwayguy (talk · contribs), who contested the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's comment above _SUBWAYguy 14:04, 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 no consensus. This may be the best example of a no-consensus AfD in some time. There is extensive discussion with established editors taking opposing views of whether this is a notable intersection on which to build a list. With discussion split following the relist, I don't forsee consensus forming. Star Mississippi 02:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand firefighters killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

Sadly for them, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Wikipedia does not contain lists of firefighter deaths for any other country and the only other one to have known to exist (USA) has also been deleted too. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and New Zealand. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator expresses it perfectly. While it is sad that they have died, and while a memorial might be appropriate, Wikipedia is not the place for it. It has been a lot of hard work to get it this far, and that work might be transported to an appropriate website, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question Assuming we all agree on the WP:NOTMEMORIAL, nonetheless Wikipedia does have very many articles that are lists. This list seems interesting, seems useful, and fire fighter deaths are generally newsworthy events. So aside from the not-a-memorial argument, how does this compare against just every other list? If we have List of bakers, List of Fireman Sam episodes, and List of pilots with foreign Aviator's Certificates accredited by the Royal Aero Club 1910–14 and List of kebabs why would we not have this list? CT55555 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 That sounds more like a question for the Village Pump, where policy can be made and unmade. It woudl be a shame to divert the discussion here to a general conversation 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting or implying policy should change, nor trying to open up a wider debate. I don't know much about the inclusion criteria for lists. I'm sincerely asking if this meets the normal criteria for a list article on its own merits. CT55555 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is WP:LISTN - we have lists, but only where the lists as such are notable. We do not have list articles simply because individual items in the list are notable. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I'm following. It's not about if the individual events are notable, it's if the general thing is notable. So is the question I need to ask myself "Are deaths of fire fighters in New Zealand generally notable events?" Is that right, or is there a better lens to take? CT55555 (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, while I believe the list is not notable, a physical memorial to "Firemen of [location] who have died in the line of duty" in a location might of itself be a notable geographic entity. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the not-a-memorial bit, but this seems like a list of events that seem exceptionally newsworthy occurrences in New Zealand, at least the fire fighters who have died on duty. That is the sort of thing that does make newspapers and TV news. But I'm still not voting, I fear I'm missing something, so waiting to understand better before voting. CT55555 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The judgement one has to make is whether the intersection is notable. Are NZ Firefighters notable? To those who love them, yes, otherwise no. Is it notable that some firefighters die in the line of duty? Probably an everyday occurrence. Now, is the intersection of those two less than notable things (the article itself) notable? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your conclusions, but I thank you for sharing guidance on how to analyze the issue. I feel sufficiently informed to !vote now. Noting we disagree, I do welcome critique of my !vote and remain open to being persuaded otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deaths of New Zealand fire fighters are notable events that make the news due to their relative rarity (by my calculation once every 830 days in the time period this article covers). I respect that Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL so have focused my analysis on simply if the type of events listed as collectively notable, which I think they are, on the basis that they tend to make the news. The inclusion of deaths while not on duty, I think, is not notable and I think they should not be included in the article, but I think that is a separate discussion from this AfD. I think the article provides useful encyclopedic information and while I recognize this may be an emotive topic, I believe I am able to make this argument simply on the basis of notability without favour to the profession and without desiring to memorialize the deceased. CT55555 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable within the context of New Zealand, but I agree that it is not within a global sense. The sources used for the New Zealand list are generally significant national newspapers within New Zealand hence meet WP:RS. I think it has sufficient credibility for the list to meet the criteria of WP:LSC as it is confined to a specific sub-set of New Zealand Firemen. I do agree with Ajf773's sentiment that such a list of all firemen killed in the US would be of doubtful merit, but note that List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks is an event specific list of the same. As you can see by comparing both lists, they are similar in size. To my mind it is practical to make such a list in a New Zealand context but impractical in a US one. NealeWellington (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was a difficult one and not sure yet which way to vote, as was thinking both WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is it all just WP:BIO1E - People notable for one event but in the end I think keep maybe appropriate as it is generally significant in NZ if a fire-fighter does die on the job. One note on an area I'm not great on, is if this is a problem when basically 86% of the article is a straight copy of the reference? I realise It's hard to not copy when it's a list but the wording in each circumstances' column is the same, on the flipside, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more newspaper articles out there for each death as well though.
As a suggestion, WP:BIO1E, as per my reading guides in the decision if the article should be about a person "John Smith" or the event "John Smith's death". It says if someone's death is not major (the killing of a world leader) then maybe a redirect to an article (my suggestion: I list) is the correct path. i.e. My interpretation of WP:BIO1E's relevance to this here is that it guides us away from individual articles and towards keeping something like this. CT55555 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True CT55555 that interpretation makes sense more of the policy and helps justify it being an article of the list of the events.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I notice a spelling error from the original source recreated in the article. I'll look in Papers Past in case the event is recorded there and refer to that. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This inherently violates the not memorial prong of Wikipedia guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems notable enough to me. I get that Wikipedia's not a memorial, but this doesn't seem to be a memorial, it seems to be a list. Krystal Kalb (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it’s a rare event in a smallish country, which is frequently covered in the news, so there’s some degree of notability. Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given by the nominator. Even if we accept that the death of a firefighter is notable (which on the whole I don't) there seems no reason to single out New Zealand: why not USA? why not Germany? why not Bangladesh? why not Paraguay? Most of the lists of people on Wikipedia that I am familiar with (for example the List of biologists) are restricted to people who are individually notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but in fact none of the people in this list are notable by that criterion. Athel cb (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "why single out New Zealand"? It's the only one we're being asked to discuss here. Point us towards the open AfD for any other and I'll assess and comment there. To your second point I think the guideline for lists doesn't require that each entry be notable, just that the topic be notable. I suggest to you that the question in front of us is "are deaths of fire fighters in New Zealand" notable events. And I point out they happen about once every two years and tend to make the news - i.e. from my perspective, it seems yes. CT55555 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced. Notable. Not presented as a memorial. Llwyld (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Could someone link to the three best sources which treat this subject as a group? Scanning the article's citations, I don't see any independent sources that do so, which is typically important for WP:LISTN (especially when we're working with a list that isn't limited to notable people/events). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write this, I can't say this is one of the best source, but I'll suggest some that deal with the topic of New Zealand fire fighter deaths as a collective topic:
1. Public plaque next to the Firefighters Memorial, Kilmore Street, Auckland, New Zealand, erected in 2002 by Christchurch City Council.
South, Wellington. "[https://brandmannenscancerfond.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2000-New-Zealand-study.pdf
1. Retrospective cohort study of mortality and cancer incidence in New Zealand fire fighters" (2000).
[62]

Assessing the classification of work-relatedness of fatal incidents: a comparison between Australia, New Zealand and the United States], 2010, https://doi.org/10.1076/icsp.9.1.32.3321

1. https://ctif.org/sites/default/files/ctif_report15_world_fire_statistics_2010.pdf (table 6) CT55555 (talk) 19:53, 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. G5 per Paulmcdonald. (non-admin closure) agtx 20:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H.D. Wright[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The tone is also quite promotional. Firestar464 (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 04:36, 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 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 5. As WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Gaughan[edit]

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

There's nothing here that adds up to notability. Unsuccessful Congressional candidates don't meet WP:NPOL, and the available sourcing falls short of what WP:BASIC/the GNG require: a few brief sentences in the press do not amount to significant coverage. His acting career is sourced only to IMDb and consists only of very minor roles, meaning that the relevant notability guideline is not met. Finally, there are no reliable sources that discuss his musical endeavors or otherwise indicate a WP:NMUSIC pass. Not notable, as best I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Virginia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidates do not get articles just for being candidates per se, but this offers no evidence whatsoever that he's notable for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. As the founder of the nationally recognized former voter engagement foundation, GOV360, and a credited actor, and musician, this article should be about someone noteworthy enough that, combined with the congressional run should not qualify this page for deletion.

But, the page needs some help form an editor. First of all, Source number 3 (in the source list at the bottom) should be an active link to the Wikipedia page on the 2014 VA 5th District election against Robert tHurt. For some reason, that link is not active. If an editor could help activate that link, I believe that would satisfy some of the sourcing issues. As to other sources, here are a few links to more articles involving GOV360 or Gaughan for Congress, that could be included. Also, the campaign was not a failed Congressional campaign, in the sense that I did win a contested nomination in that district, and went on to run in the general election. With an editor's help and expertise, this article could be saved from deletion and the notoriety will most likely increase in the future. As a teacher, many of students appreciate the page and thus, this is drawing viewers to Wikipedia. It is a win win to keep this active.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/robert-hurt-midterm-election-results_n_5953666

https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/gaughan-throws-hat-in-the-ring-for-5th-district/article_a6ddb984-030a-11e8-bee9-a3f67a868dfa.html

https://lgbtvadem.org/blog/candidate-spotlight-lawrence-gaughan-5th-congressional-district/

https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2014/10/lawrence-gaughan-5th-district/ LawrenceofVA (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, In the reference section of this article, Number 3 needs to be linked to the actual Wikipedia page about the 2014 election against Robert Hurt. the name W. Lawrence Gaughan is on that page, but for some reason the link is not active. If that can be fixed and item number 5 in the Reference section could be replaced with any or all of the links to other articles provided here, that should solve any issues that might make this up for debate. Thank you for all you do, and to see if we could fix those two issues in the Reference section of the Lawrence Gaughan article. LawrenceofVA (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just having credits as an actor and musician does not automatically get a person into Wikipedia, and being the founder of an organization does not automatically get a person into Wikipedia either. For the purposes of qualifying to have a Wikipedia article, notability hinges far less on what you did and far more on how much media coverage you did or didn't get for doing what you did. People don't get articles just for existing; they get articles when their work has been externally validated as significant by people other than themselves in ways that can be supported by media sources writing about it journalistically: Oscar or Emmy or Grammy award voters deeming it to be one of the five best performances of the year, professional film or music critics analyzing its significance in film or television or music reviews, and on and so forth. Nothing that anybody can do makes them notable until media think it's significant enough to do third party journalism about it.
And also, no, you can't cite Wikipedia articles as "references" in other Wikipedia articles, either: all footnotes have to be to external media sources, not to other Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 5. Worth preserving the page's history. KidAd • SPEAK 08:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine by me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 5. A standalone article is unwarranted, as the subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. A redirect is justified, however, as the subject was his party's nominee in the aforementioned election and appeared on the ballot.Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 5. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing to add to this debate is the fact that Lawrence Gaughan as a candidate and as the director of GOV360 was covered almost weekly by the Charlottesville NBC and CBS network affiliates that have since dumped their servers and those links are not active. But, this should be taken into consideration, because there was a lot of MEDIA coverage that may no longer be available to view online, which should not weigh in favor of deleting this article. A call to the NBC affiliate (434) 220-2900 confirmed this. LawrenceofVA (talk) 00:01, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Fitzpatrick[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Scotland. Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no evidence of BEFORE being undertaken when sources like this (which I found on the first page of Google by searching for 'Harold Fitzpatrick Liverpool' which took me here, and then I clicked 'All articles about Harry Fitzpatrick on PlayUpLiverpool.com.') show that historical and significant newspaper coverage is present, showing notability. Giant Snowman 07:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On looking for sources and article expansion in the short space of time this morning, between Alvaldi and myself I feel there is more than enough out there. Online sources are not the best, I am sure there will be some WP:OFFLINESOURCES, all in all. I feel there is more than enough to satisfy basic GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:28, 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 speedy delete. G5 per Paulmcdonald. (non-admin closure) agtx 20:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hattar[edit]

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

Minimal coverage, mostly it appears in student papers. Does not meet WP:GNG. agtx 03:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my research, Hattar has been featured in international publications, including The New Humanitarian and Medium, as well as regional newspapers, such as the Tribune Star and The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald. Solely because of his appearance in these publications I believe his page should not be deleted, not to mention his public profile as an international activist in a major crisis, and his connection to Carl Wilkens. EricArtBlair (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC) (blocked sock)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 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. ✗plicit 12:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bickley-Warren Productions[edit]

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

Not notable. Was prodded with rationale " I would recommend a merge with Miller-Boyett Productions but since there are no citations, it might be best to delete." but prod removed due to previous incarnation of article being prodded. No sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 22 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?)} 01:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article is not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:41, 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!} 02:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:56, 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.

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 12:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Montana government[edit]

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

This article appears to be written for the purpose of an academic essay. Much of the content is based on original research, and while some of this content is salvagable and likely can be moved into Montana State Government, I'm not sure most of this is encyclopedic. There hasn't been any discussion input on the talk page about this. No other articles (that I can find) exist for the other 49 states. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Montana. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My sense is this article is salvageable. The tone of the prose needs to change, but the material is good. Enos733 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Heavily based on original research and reads too much like an essay. I agree that whatever salvagable content exists can be merged into Montana State Government. Sal2100 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Totally salvageable, with room for meaningful expansion. I've now deleted some of the worst offending original research statements and added a few additional facts with citations. Further fixes still needed but happy to keep fixing. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have deleted and edited further, and caught a few glaring errors. Suggest renaming this page to "Women in Montana state government". Cielquiparle (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome, further suggestion is contact the instructors of this Wiki Education course at Rice University (@DZOBrien and @Ian (Wiki Ed) to inform them of the problems with original research occurring with this and other articles, such as Women in Texas government. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't think the original research and essay-like tone is an issue now following all the fixes (and deletions). The subsequent discussion on the Talk page all has to do with the scope of the article and whether it should be merged with the main Montana state government page. If that is the case, I suggest closing this AfD and changing it to a Merge discussion. Or, perhaps it is an issue that can be addressed over the course of normal editing and expansion. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an essay and I do not believe it can be salvaged under the current title. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article presents an interesting history which is well within the bounds of an encyclopedic article. While further improvements are welcome, arguments such as it is an essay or there are no similar articles for the other states are not valid.--Ipigott (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate as to what exactly is interesting? The majority of the content is just a list of the first women to hold specific elected positions within the Montana govt. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting is not the standard for an AFD. The question is does the topic meet our notability standards. Women in state government is a well-researched area (see the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers). In Montana specifically, there are several articles (from the Women's Suffrage Movement in Montana [63]) and this article about women in the Montana Legislature [64]. Enos733 (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but you mentioned how the article itself is interesting, and in response I was asking in which way. The article mentions which women first held which offices, and some information about the first female executive officeholders. This information already exists in those respective articles. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid topic for an encyclopedia article, well-sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A generic article provided information passes WP:RS. JoyStick101 (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review article in light of recent changes in content. Also, consider Merge proposal put forward by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reversal of my previous (and now-stricken) !vote. In light of recent content changes and improved sourcing, I believe this now passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable topic, article isn't such a poor state that deletion is needed. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:27, 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 Draftify. While there is no consensus, this is a reasonable solution to a stalemate to give @Avigdorim: time and the content as it seems possible Menken might be worth covering within the context of the coalition, which is a draft at User:Avigdorim/sandbox or the coalition might be worth adding to Menken. This way history and attribution are preserved. Avigdorim feel free to ping me if you need a history merge or anything down the line. Star Mississippi 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Menken[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet WP:GNG, the only non-independent cited source includes only passing mention of the subject and does not clearly demonstrate notability. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep Subject has been showing up a lot on news sites recently, I'll have to do a search. The new org he runs claims 2000 rabbis behind it, see the new cite by X-Editor. So he's much more notable than when page was created (by me, 2009) and the last time it was nominated for deletion, which was rejected. The page needs to catch up, and the org needs a page too. I can work on that next week, I just haven't been active or kept up. Avigdorim (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, could you link me to the previous AfD? I wasn't able to find anything but would be interested in reading. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just have this vague memory of this being discussed, probably between 2010-2015. I was just trying to find it myself. Avigdorim (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty rusty on Wikipedia edits, and I'm sure I'll mess up the Infobox, but I'll try to revamp this page... well, I see a deletion is normally 7 day discussion, so I'll try to make some edits here Sunday. You've reminded me to dust it off. Avigdorim (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, adding to the article would be great. Others will also likely chime in here with feedback. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep I think the page should remain because Rabbi Menken is a prominent person. Becky613 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 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 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material, and have started to build an article on Coalition for Jewish Values in my sandbox (I said I was going to do that "next week" on April 21). There's a lot here, all kinds of media mentions of the org and Menken as managing director, a lot more than I saw for his other work. So it's up for vote but I think both are notable. Avigdorim (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep votes are not based in policy but there also haven't been any Delete comments since the addition of new content to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the new content, I would still recommend delete. There are 12 citations -- the only citation which is not written by the subject, is still live, or includes more than passing mention is an interview, so this article does not pass WP:NBIO unless other citations demonstrating notability and including significant coverage are added. Being the leader of the Coalition of Jewish Values does not inherently suggest the subject is notable unless they are referenced in more than passing mention in the context of that organization (in the citations in the article and others I've found Menken is barely referenced or has a pull quote, which is not enough to craft a biography from nor demonstrate notability). It's just not clear to me that the subject can be demonstrated as notable without adding some significant new article -- my digging hasn't uncovered anything that would solve these issues. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't refer to WP policies, it's been a long time since I edited. To me it seems clear, now that I dig into the rules, that the Coalition for Jewish Values meets WP:N, because there are at least 3 articles I found talking about it, plus lots of news stories with quotes. Menken seems to be the guy getting quoted and interviewed the most, especially on video, more than passing mention. But I agree the org is more notable than someone who works for it. Avigdorim (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While this article relies too much on primary sources and self-written articles (of which there are many), and not enough on reliable independent sources, still there is this interview, which does go into a bit of depth, and this, which reports on the subject critiquing The Washington Post for doxxing an Orthodox Jew. I just added a brand new source which makes passing reference to the subject's views on the SCOTUS leak. According to WP:NBASIC, while multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is required, still if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. StonyBrook _babble 04:56, 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. I don't see a consensus to Merge but if some editor wants to use content from this article to other articles, contact me or WP:REFUND for temporary undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: A Celebration[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doctor Who is amazing, but not everything related to the franchise is notable and I am unable to find independent evidence of notability for this fundraiser. There's a lot of false positives in BBC coverage, but given the partnerships the're not independent in this case. Considered a merger to Doctor_Who_Confidential but it's not clear that would be helpful to the reader so bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and Wales. Star Mississippi 20:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Bduke (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bduke: "I agree" to what? Those that are more in-tune to the franchise may know better, but from an article space opinion: The first three sources I checked returned a 404 error. The last two are not actually sources leaving "Doctor Who - A Celebration Concert TV", that states: "This is a fan site". This leaves the article pretty much void of sources advancing WP:notability.

The "special event" (19 November 2006) was for the BBC Children in Need which would have been a worthy cause. According to one source, BBC Radio Wales reaches a "weekly audience of 371,000 listeners". It was apparently broadcast on BBC Three accessible by Red Button One. There is also the 1983 book, Doctor Who: A Celebration - Two Decades Through Time and Space. Except for YouTube (and remastered) that is about all I can find that isn't Wikipedia related. There would need to be some independent source to even consider merging per ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be deleted. It is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was There is really no consensus to do anything here. The Delete arguements are just as convincing as the Keep arguements. Additionally, I find the Merge suggestion convincing. A suggested route would be to merge the article, then CSD for houskeeping once merged. But the end result of this discussion is No consensus..

Previous discussions:

2007-12 (closed as ✗ There is really no consensus to do anything here.  The Delete arguements are just as convincing as the Keep arguements.  Additionally, I find the Merge suggestion convincing.  A suggested route would be to merge the article, then CSD for houskeeping once merged.  But the end result of this discussion is No consensus.)

Logs: 2007-10 ✗ CSD G12

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Children in Need or delete outright. I am also unable to find any non-BBC WP:RS coverage of this event; that makes me think that, while it could merit inclusion in the larger Children in Need article, it's not significant enough to merit its own article. Alternatively, one could create a Doctor Who Children in Need specials article per futurehawk's proposal in the last AFD discusison. Lkb335 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see feedback on whether Merge to this suggested target would be an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the previous afd was a long time ago but the article and it's position is mostly unchanged. I am not seeing sufficient merit to merge any of the content and think on balance, deletion would be better. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 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 the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland REACT[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Hardly anything in gnews, and a plain google search shows mainly directory listings.

Also nominating related organization:

Heartland READY. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already an article on the original company and no reason for a small branch to have its own article. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based only on one reference. For now it does not satisfy WP:NORG. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:49, 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. ✗plicit 08:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pete Walter Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Nothing like significant coverage. Article orphaned for at least ten years. PepperBeast (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no proof of notability, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Every source cited is now a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral pressure theory[edit]

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

This is a concept associated with one scholar (Nazli Choucri), with little indicating that it's a well-known and widely cited theory. The entire article is structured as an argument where strands of unrelated literature are brought together to advance the author's theory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am in two minds about this one. On the one hand I agree that "the entire article is structured as an argument where strands of unrelated literature are brought together to advance the author's theory", but on the other hand Nazli Choucri does seem to be a well regarded academic, with extensive information about her on the web, and numerous publications. I find it surprising that there is no Wikipedia article about her, especially as at least one of her students (Richard K. Ashley) has a Wikipedia article. Someone ought to write one (not me: I don't know enough about her or her theories). Athel cb (talk) 08:49, 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 Susan Strange. ✗plicit 12:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westfailure[edit]

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

This is a concept coined by a well-known scholar. There's little to indicate that the concept itself is well-known (as shown by the dominance of citations to the work that proposed the concept). If there is any content worth keeping, it should be merged with the Susan Strange article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was initially going to go with weak keep - Strange was an important scholar and IR on Wikipedia certainly isn't over-represented. But the secondary literature on the concept is just a tiny bit too thin to make it work, even if technically one could put together something plausible. I think some of the content should be recycled into Strange's own article and the article on sovereignty. Atchom (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Susan Strange, as the concept has had some discussion/criticism in secondary sources,^[1]^[2] and probably warrants a paragraph or two of elaboration in her biography, but not a full article of exposition. Deletion seems a needlessly harsh measure when alternatives exist. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect and transfer of content over to Strange's page is suitable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Murphy, Craig N. (2016). "'The Westfailure System' ﬁfteen years on: Global problems, what makes them difficult to solve and the role of IPE". In Germain, Randall (ed.). Susan Strange and the Future of Global Political Economy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-62787-8.
^ Williams, John (2006). "Shifting Lines in the Sand". The Ethics of Territorial Borders: Drawing Lines in the Shifting Sand. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 116–134. ISBN 978-0-230-62482-5.

Redirect it's a plausible search term and there is still continuing use of it.^[1]

References

^ Pan, Chengxin (2 January 2021). "Racialised politics of (in)security and the COVID-19 Westfailure". Critical Studies on Security. 9 (1): 40–45. doi:10.1080/21624887.2021.1904195.

Material can be incorporated onto Susan Strange's page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Susan Strange and merge in useful information. If it gets too unwieldy there and requires splitting back out, the page history will be retained for easy editing - redirects are cheap. Jacona (talk) 12:52, 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lingamfelter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, no Independent Sources WP:IS seem to mention this person in a web search. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, Military, New York, and Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need improvement, but state legislators are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1 — they're exactly the type of topic who are so important, so mission critical, for us to have articles about that we have to keep them even if the sourcing is inadequate — the only way to actually get an article about a state legislator deleted is if the article might be a hoax because it's impossible to verify that he even held a state legislature seat at all. But for a politician who was first elected to office 20 years ago, it's incredibly unlikely that their best sourcing would Google well — just because he isn't getting coverage now, when he isn't in office anymore and thus wouldn't be expected to be getting much coverage today, doesn't prove that he wasn't getting covered 10 and 15 and 20 years ago. You gotta get into the archives (ProQuest, Newspapers.com, etc.), not just the Google, to find media coverage from that far back. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Person automatically meets WP:NPOL as a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates. KidAd • SPEAK 08:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a long precedent of keeping articles on every member of a state legislature we can verrify existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having been an elected member of a state legislature, he passes WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear WP:NPOL pass. The part about his book and the "Professional Experience" need to be removed because they are clearly promotion, though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:13, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flokzu[edit]

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

Promotional article about non-notable software or company (not entirely clear which). No reliable source coverage found. agtx 00:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure what this has to do with California? The company name seems to be Antabel S.A in Argentina. Research indicates a company called Antabel International in Panama, but not clear if that is related. Their web page indicates an office in Spain, none in the USA. Of course any kids with a web site can claim to be "wolrd-wide". They show a photo of the company with about 30 people, but cannot find much else. Too bad, there is a USA bias in the software articles, but without independent sources, hard to make a case for this one. W Nowicki (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much your run of the mill self-promotion of a non-WP:NCORP entity. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:52, 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 per A7. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny! (TV show)[edit]

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

Seems this YouTube show is non-notable and created by someone with 77 subscribers (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT2pPl_2Gsu8X-t7hX371Dw/featured). Gonnym (talk) 00:13, 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. Draftication can be requested at WP:REFUND. ✗plicit 11:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Share (upcoming film)[edit]

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

There hasn't been any news on this film for nearly a year, and it might not be notable for mainspace yet. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is too soon. Fails NFILM. There is no established notability. The title can be interpreted as promotional.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. The Film Creator (talk) 12:15, 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.