< April 28	April 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the socking and unrefuted hoax allegations I’m going to go with delete but if there are proper sources than a non sock user is free to find somewhere to write about this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pak-Bangla language[edit]

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

There is no such language called "Pak-Bangla language" (when searching, don't get confused with Pak-Bangla as in Pakistan-Bangladesh). A mention in a book doesn't make it a language. Most of sources cited in the article doesn't even mention it. There is no significant coverage. The article seems like WP:OR. At best we can move relevant part to Bengali language movement#Early stages of the movement.

(I have a strong feeling that the article was created by a sock of User:Lazy-restless). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see here, google books english search and google books bengali search, at least it can be moved as Bangla writing in Arabic script, because it was a deliberately discussed topic in the field of bengali language movement and there is significant mention of the topic in reliable sources. See the recent edition, I have added some more references. And for your concern to know that, I am not any sockpuppet of anyone. Lavito principa (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]

No, no such writing system exists. At best we can move relevant part to Bengali language movement#Early stages of the movement (or below suggestion). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions "Arabic or Urdu letters" which suggests an XY problem. I suggest merging and rewriting as Bengali orthography covering all ways of writing the Bangla/Bangali language (also covering eg. Bengali alphabet, Romanisation of Bengali). For a language spoken by hundreds of millions of people its orthography is certain to be notable. (t · c) buidhe 07:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per first sentence, there is no such thing as "Pak-Bangla language". Articles confuses language and script, and is linking different events in history using original research. UserNumber (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep: as Bengali writing in Arabic script because this had a significant coverage and the title clarifies the topic. Lavito principa (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
No such writing system exists. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For notability, existance at present is not compulsary, but reference and mention as notable according to wikipedia guideline and policy is needed, for example, dinosaur and dodo doesn't exist, but still why the article about dinousour still exist in wikipedia? Why the Ottoman Turkish article although it is not common now? Not a rational logic. The respective system was a project in 1947 after period and in the nawabi era of Bengal, this writing system obviously existed for the whole period without any single doubt and also a specimen is avalaible for visitors in Bangladesh national museum (see this video: 29:54-29:56, this two Puthi inscriptions mentioned here is of 16th and 7th century bengal) and according to that, that 72 puthis had been found written in bengali with arabic script including Alaol's Padmavati and Shah Muhammad Sagir's Yusuf-Zulekha. As a project of pakistan it was a talk of the town in east pakistan's politics of that time taken by Fazlur Rahman (politician), the father of Salman F Rahman, and along with urdu and arabic proposed as lingua franca, this proposal was also strongly opposed by Dhirendranath Datta then, the references are deliberately found in online and offline academic and news sources, you can search the whole discussions in then pakistan assembly papers of 1947-1954 and you will find long discussion in pakistans assembly about this project. Lavito principa (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
Merge and rewrite: I support Buidhe. I think we can merging and rewriting as Bengali orthography covering all ways of writing the Bangla/Bangali language. Mehedi Abedin 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rewrite: Per nomination and according to the above discussion. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 09:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lavito principa is an confirmed sock puppets of User:Lazy-restless —MdsShakil (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, change the name to "Islamization of Bengali language" and rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.253.46.108 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC) suspected sock[reply]
Delete or merge/rewrite I looked in all of the reference titles, and also at the target of about 10 of the cites and didn't see even a mention of this language. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – definitely a hoax. There's no such language as "Pak-Bangla language". And furthermore it's created by an IP address (103.67.157.5), possibly used by blocked sock Lavito principa. No real value in keeping this. Radioactive (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 03:18, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoureh Shojaee[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Sources are highly promotional or do not mention the subject beyond superficial levels. De-prodded because "there's enough". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 15 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!} 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is possible that GNG is met, but the current article has so many problems that it would likely be a BLP violation to keep in its current form. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:21, 23 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 23:54, 29 April 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Rodríguez Ruidíaz[edit]

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

Sources are WP:PRIMARY or tangential. Couldn't find anything better. De-prodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Cuba. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 15 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!} 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has a distinctly promotional tone, but it seems possible at a glance that some SNG would be met. However, the main reference used is a self-published work. I don't see independent sourcing to verify that any SNG is met. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:19, 23 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 23:54, 29 April 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!} 23:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Sukhdeo[edit]

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

Non-notable. Tagged for sources since 2010 with no improvement. Current sources are only passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 15 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!} 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet minimum sourcing standards for a WP:BLP article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:21, 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!} 23:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Lewisham[edit]

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

Incomplete list of non-notable ceremonial mayors. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source listed isnt even for the main list

NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:27, 2 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. The source analysis by Jacona, which shows that there is not substantial coverage of the topic, and that it therefore fails WP:GNG, has remained unrebutted. Sandstein 07:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pghbridges.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination by IP 209.82.165.136: Pghbridges.com, only has one source, should be deleted. SN54129 17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SN54129 17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... but as the article creator (a long time ago now, very early in my wiki-career), I freely admit bias. If this article does get deleted, all the information should be moved to WP: space... specifically to the Bridges project pages. (perhaps to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges/List of bridge reference sites) As I said before, this site is a good reference for bridge articles, and has enough notability to pass muster. Notability doesn't "go away" with time, it was notable in 2004 and in 2010, and we are not exactly hurting for space. What has changed since the last time this was nominated? Or the time before? It was kept both times. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only things I find are trivial mentions. Found nothing at newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com. There is nothing that looks like significant coverage to me; this fails WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 19:12, 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!} 23:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this has been relisted, I decided to look back at the previous nomination for deletion. The only criteria they had for keeping it was this [1] and this now-dead url [2]. Both of these articles do nothing more than mention the existence of the site; neither gives it a complete paragraph, they are both local to the subject. Since then, there is also another miniscule mention here [3]. These are at best WP:TRIVIA, and definitely not significant coverage. This article fails WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lots of other websites reference this site: some make use of the images or the history, a wide range (schools, gov, reports,…) link to Bridge Basics for its educational value. StrayBolt (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the argument there is that the reference value of the site to WP could be preserved by moving the article into a subpage of the Bridge project. (that's an argument made in earlier discussions.... it happens to be one I don't personally agree with but I would be remiss not to mention it....) ... and the fact that other sites reference it for valuable resources doesn't itself make a site notable (again, not something I personally agree with, but ...) ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arunita Kanjilal[edit]

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

GNG not met. The subject comes after Pawandeep Rajan, which was recently redirected to Indian Idol 12 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawandeep Rajan. Suggesting a redirect but inviting community discussion for more clarity. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:50, 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 India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the argument for deletion, happy to fix it. All irrelevant references will be removed. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Fixed encyclopedic references and multiple references. This article was clean earlier, removed unecessary references. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP :~~ Added notable e-Patrika (newspaper) publication inviting the subject as guest editor on their e-paper. https://epaper.patrika.com/imageview_535372_1763729408_4_78_17-04-2022_4_i_1_sf.html

Significant independent published work of the subject meeting the notability (music) criteria of "to include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" Musicwikilover (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources is helpful in establishing notability. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the e-Patrika (newspaper publication). It is a significant independent publication. Hope this source has been checked before the claim that none of sources establish notability. Musicwikilover (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack WP:RS. Besides that, its WP:TOOSOON case. -Hatchens (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I don't think it was necessary to open this discussion. She is notable and source are reliable. Montubhai (talk) 2:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Montubhai, How do you feel she is notable? Most of the sources cited are unreliable and puff, others don't have significant coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable , the sources are reliable Indian publications including the independent e-newspapers where she was invited as guest editor. Musicwikilover (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
being invited as a guest editor doesn't make someone notable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir -

As per below - The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
WP:NEXIST , WP:NPOSSIBLE

I would suggest to search for sources rather than just propose for deletion as indicated above.

Also , as I said the independent e-newspaper publication from a State of India asked the subject to be their editor for a day is surely notable for me. There is no affiliation of the subject with the said publication. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be notable, one needs to either pass the WP:GNG criteria or any WP:SNG criteria and the subject passes none of these. I agree a plenty of coverage exists but it doesn't meet the guidelines such as WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS. That's to say, someone doesn't become notable if they receive some advertorial and routine coverage. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:32, 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!} 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the main problem is with respect to WP:SIGCOV and even with WP:RS here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs)
Delete Lacks coverage. Looked at the first five references. Very poor, no specifically about her, mostly about the competitions. No other reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps too soon, but currently non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 2 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 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Software manufacturing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure if this is a real practice. No sources, stub page, and most likely already covered by other pages. User known for self-advertising and copyright violations as well as possibly vote stuffing on the previous nomination. - Skynorth/Starfrost^{my talk page} 22:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete based on not only all of the above but also how the article reads more like an essay thanks to zero sources being provided.TH1980 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the amount of time that has passed since the original afd, the rationales for delete still stand true in my view. The "term" concerns me as sounding like something created or fabricated by the original author, or at least there may have been some conflict there. I did do a curious google search but it seems a bit hopeless as it's a broad combination of words, yet the article is very narrow. I can't see any development potential but even if there were, I don't think it would be progressing the current article but instead something different. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aje Filmworks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This is a deceptive article. The awards that appear to have been received by Aje Filmworks have been received by individual directors, so its claim to notability is tenuous at best. More than half of the prose is about a person whose work is unreferenced. This is a WP:BLP failure. The whole is WP:ADMASQ for a production company Sailing at full speed...churning out exceptional work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Film, Companies, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Timtrent, Non notable establishment. I do not see ORG met. Furthermore this is a very possible paid job. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very promotional. Lacks sources to meet WP:NCORP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I read "He has been churning out exceptional work" or "...which have been enjoying massive airplay" I can be pretty certain that this is promotional, probably paid for editing and not notable, even without looking at the refs. On this occasion looking at the refs only confirmed these fears. No notability here. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to redeem the article when I saw it was nominated for The Headies in 2013, but I don’t think it can be saved. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sailing at full speed, for failing to meet WP:NCORP. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:49, 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 23:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Resort (Australian TV series)[edit]

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

Article about a television series, not reliably sourced 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 existed for almost two decades without ever having any proper references added.
And for added bonus, this article is decidedly non-neutral, expressing value judgements about "the biggest problems" with the show in Wikipedia's own editorial voice without sourcing them anywhere.
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) 20:13, 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) 20:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a little coverage out there, mostly about its axing, but not enough to support an article. Half the current article is unsupported. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found RS about the show's genesis, and a couple about its axing, but nothing substantial. Fails WP:TVSHOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinifex&Sand (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of late spring flowers[edit]

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

unreferenced listified stub since 2007; neither "late spring" nor "late spring flower" are definable terms; list would be far too broad in scope to be useful to anyone Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear criteria for inclusion, with both "late spring" and "late spring flower" being utterly subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to no citations, and because I'm sure what type of flowers bloom in Spring is dependent on location, and yet this article doesn't disaggregate by location. CT55555 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prodded twice before, in 2012 and 2019, due to concerns about the list's vague and overly broad scope. The article List of early summer flowers was deleted by PROD in 2019 for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and LaundryPizza03. Spkabil (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "late" is vague -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of women inventors[edit]

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

The purpose of articles is not to simply duplicate categories, but this list adds exactly zero information not provided by the articles in question already being in Category:Women inventors. There is no lead, no history of the subject, no references, just "binders full of women". Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for being far too broad. The days of (recognized) inventors of the female persuasion being a novelty are far, far in the past. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not properly alphabetized and does not even tell us what these people invented. I'd also recommend deleting List of women innovators and inventors by country, which is effectively the same topic and also lacks references. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reason to have this unsourced list. Category:Women inventors, also created by the same user 4 years earlier, already serves the purpose. For what it's worth, the creator User:Ottawahitech was permanently blocked in 2017 for participating via Proxy. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 29 April 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. Invoking WP:SNOW here. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. That is very much the case with this article, which is entirely FANDOM style plot summary and little that would be relevant to non-fans. In its current state, the article is very much unencyclopedic and as long as it stays as-is, it is unlikely to see improvement (much less anyone willing to even touch the article to fix it due to its sheer length). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:TNT is an essay, and while I agree with the concern that the bulk of the article is documenting in-universe appearances of the character, the character is also one of the most significant in the Transformers franchise. As such, deletion seems a bit extremist to me, versus making an effort to focus on more real-world content and probably trim down the in-universe material. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proverbial can has been kicked down the road ever since 2004, 18 years ago. Saying that it could potentially be fixed does not merit a blatantly WP:NOT article remaining there for what will soon be 2 decades. Transformers does give enough info about Megatron for most to understand his importance as the villain of the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've been here since late 2004, roughly the last 17.5 of those 18 years, and you haven't fixed this article. Why not? You edited a category in late 2017, so you've presumably been aware of this problem for 4.5 years. Are you assuming zero ownership of helping to clean up articles? Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:SOLVE and WP:VOLUNTEER. I am not employed by Wikipedia so if an article doesn't interest me in fixing it just doesn't, although I still feel obligated to call attention to seriously problematic articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel obligated to call attention to seriously problematic articles, it seems odd to me that you haven't said anything at the article's Talk page, nor to the best of my awareness at the projects listed at the article's Talk page. AfD seems an unusual first stop for claling attention to an article.You may want to review WP:BEFORE. DonIago (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains plenty of references from IGN, MTV and USA Today that establish notability. The sheer length of the article is a problem that can be fixed outside of AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The OP's argument and rejection of the notion the article could potentially be fixed, citing the lack of improvements by competent editors from the past 20 years as a reason, directly contradicts their own statement that deletion of the article "could help encourage a new article". Not only is it pure speculation as well as an unreasonable expectation of other editors to make the proposed improvements instead of the OP doing it themselves, the nomination's rationale also does not follow Wikipedia's deletion policy. WP:TNT is an essay that provides advice about how to deal with problematic or poorly framed content, including the editorial method of bolding removing or blanking prose and reducing the article to a stub-length as a way of "starting over". WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST however, are extensions of Wikipedia's basic notability guideline. Because article content does not determine notability and notability is based on the existence of suitable sources as opposed to the state of sourcing in an article, this nomination has failed to argue a case on why the article itself should be deleted. There is clear evidence of significant coverage from sources like this Indonesian academic journal article or this book which has devoted significant pages to discussing Megatron. By all means, reduce the plot-heavy article to a stub and start over with better sources, but that is purely an editorial concern and not relevant for an AfD discussion. Haleth (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feel free to go ahead and edit out the excessive plot, but the fictional element is clearly notable. TNT is neither a policy nor guideline, so this is borderline speedy keep territory: if the problem can be fixed by editing, to include vicious excision of useless or overly detailed information, deletion is not appropriate. Anyone who seriously questions the notability of the main antagonist in Transformers is runs afoul of either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR--not saying the nom makes this argument, but noting that it is--correctly--not even remotely in play. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. Not a great nom. Take a flamethrower to the text but AFD is no place for it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has apropriate sourcing. //Julle (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Decepticon. This is a major fancruft mess, with 98% being uneferenced, and no reception section. The cultural legacy is a WP:NOTTVTROPES-style list. This might be notable, but WP:TNT applies. That said, rather than hard delete I think a redirect is sufficient, since if/when this is rewritten in a way that complies with our core policies (GNG, V, etc.) a few tidbits might be reused. But we cannot keep it in the current shape, since the article totally fails to estabilish it's notability (and nobody has done so here citing proper sources that discuss this in a WP:SIGCOV way and are independent). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious with your redirection suggestion. Have you seen the state of the Decepticon article, or how it cites barely five secondary sources? I would have expected that articles like these would be sent to AfD well before articles which are poorly written but are still supported with plenty of cited sources. Haleth (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, given the indeed terrible state of the Decepticon article, I am changing my preferred redirect format to the generic article about this series/franchise. And I'll try to remember to review that other article and maybe bring it here if the sourcing doesn't check out. Happy? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TNT is an essay, WP:PRESERVE is a policy. "delete the content to help encourage a new article", "as long as it stays as-is, it is unlikely to see improvement", these arguments are never true. Improvements come not because an absence of content. 182.1.72.196 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I'm concerned, a page for the primary antagonist of a long-running and successful franchise is automatically exempt from deletion, no matter how badly the page itself is written. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin is well-advised to consider the "quality" of arguments used here, and remember that WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: TNT only applies to articles that can't be fixed through simple editing. This one can. See the counter-argument essay WP:TNTTNT. Someone as iconic as Megatron is bound to have tons of coverage, and Haleth has provided some above. MoonJet (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Megatron is easily one of the most notable transformers, and I don't see a reason to throw the whole article out when more selective text removals can be done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:THEREISNORUSH, etc. I've supported deletions based on TNT before, but those were short articles with POV/COI/advertising issues. "There's too much here" is the opposite kind of problem. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the posts above. The article badly needs improvement, not deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic per WP:GNG. I have no problem with distilling the article down to a list of appearances, but deletion is not needed. Looking for sources...

The book Transformers and Philosophy shows Megatron in its index for many pages: 35, 81, 100-01, 111-12, 127, 133, 162, 167, 171, 182, 193-197, 201-05, 208-09, 231; leadership, 90, 148-49, 156-58, 171-72, 179, 197-200. One chapter in the book is, "Megatron, Fascist Philosopher".
It also looks like Megatron is mentioned on ten clustered pages in a chapter about Transformers in the book The Galaxy Is Rated G: Essays on Children's Science Fiction Film and Television as seen here.
The book Robots That Kill Deadly Machines and Their Precursors in Myth, Folklore, Literature, Popular Culture and Reality has mentions of Megatron on pages 28, 110-111, 114, 141 here.
Comic Book Resources has numerous articles with Megatron in the headline here, like the article "Transformers: How More than Meets the Eye Changed Megatron", which is an example of a secondary source that tracks how the character has changed over the years.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. Article may be disorganized/cluttered, but a deletion by WP:TNT may not be necessary as discussed above. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I see the issues with the article, but this isn't a fundamental issue of notability. There would be some aspects here to preserve. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RK Prajapati[edit]

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

Self-written promo article, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jimfbleak initiated this discussion literally while I was in the process of typing out an AFD nomination in Twinkle myself, so I'm obviously going to just repeat the reasoning I was trying to use. This is indeed an AUTOBIO (creator = "Imrkprajapati"), and is referenced to a mixture of his own self-published content on his own company's website and mere directory entries, with absolutely no reliable source coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are automatically entitled to have articles (much less to create their own articles themselves) just because they have jobs — notability is a question of showing media coverage about the person to demonstrate that their work has been externally validated as significant, such as by winning notable awards for it or by being the subject of significant critical analysis. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of any WP:GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, self-published, no filmography listed. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What everyone else said. Seungri400 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.IndaneLove (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't fulfill WP:DIRECTOR. RS6784 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without any doubt. Doesn't fall any criteria of listing. --_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:16, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tijani Fahie[edit]

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

Prod removed citing now-defunct WP:NFOOTY. Subject does not have sufficient (or, indeed, really any) coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable per WP:GNG. There's only mentions as part of routine coverage of the team: [4] [5]. agtx 16:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Caribbean. agtx 16:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Despite being a modern day athlete from an english speaking country, I was unable to find anything significant on him during a search. Seems to be playing in the Saint Kitts and Nevis second tier league. His lone international cap (substitute on 83rd minute against Andorra) doesn't seem to have given him any additional coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ortizesp: Which source convinces you of that? agtx 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find trivial coverage in match reports, statistics databases and a national team selection announcement. Fails GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I concur that the subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Olsson (programmer)[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this WP:BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 16:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Sweden. J04n(talk page) 16:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable coverage to show notability. Sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not within WP:GNG at this time. BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, zero WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Lkb335 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Sargent Primary School[edit]

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

A primary school which fails WP:NSCHOOL and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Two routine sources from the local newspaper exist; both relate to the Covid pandemic. One is about the school re-opening after a lockdown, the second about a student testing positive in 2020. A third source is a trivial mention in a book by a YouTuber who attended the school. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nope. No evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seungri400 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources only provide a passing mention. Lorstaking 10:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Generally primary schools are not in themselves notable and there would have to be significant coverage or some other form of notability for one to merit an article. This does not seem to be the case here. Dunarc (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to World Association of Wrestling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WAW World Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

This seems like a very minor title, where it is hard to even be certain what the current name is (apparently, since 2016 it was the "Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship", but it looks to have reverted to the old one now?) or the current title holder (the article cites a 2019 source, but it seems as if it has been held by 2 other wrestlers since). Searching with the current title gives very few news hits[6] and rather few general hits[7] for a type of event which normally generates lots of nearly identical wrestling database and fansite hits. Looking for the shorter title doesn't really give much better results[8][9]. Fram (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be several much less prestigious titles with full pages[1][2]

The current title holder citation was added by someone else, who seems to have quoted an outdated article. I've added the list of champions and a few reference articles that verify the primary sources. DJ Nash (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to World Association of Wrestling or just Redirect this there. There is a reoccurring problem with borderline-notable companies getting many pages spun-off from them, and I think this is a case where the title is not notable and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:LM2000 J04n(talk page) 19:03, 29 April 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, participants are all over the map here, Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge. No penalty against a future AFD or changing the article through editing work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Chords and the Truth (song)[edit]

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

Sources fail to establish independent notability. Previous PROD was removed by User:Ficaia claiming the article "seems to have been reviewed and commented upon" without linking to any such review (which I could not find myself), pinging here to hear a full explanation of that/potential counterargument to deletion. Similar PROD for Shame About That was also removed but that article was converted to a redirect to the album, I would support that move here as well. QuietHere (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I was mistaken. The reviews were of the album not the song. My bad. Ficaia (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh, I thought you were referring to a WP discussion about/previous edit history of the article. That explains it, thank you. QuietHere (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: Shame About That has been unredirected, will be starting an AFD for that momentarily. QuietHere (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, charted on Billboard, sources discuss the song at length. WP:SIGCOV is passed here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the sources that I reflected on and found questionable. Found two sources from Billboard magazine itself saying that it "was ranked among Billboard's "Most-Played Video Clips" in August 1997." In a separate article I discovered, "It was nominated by the Music Video Production Association for Country Video of the Year, according to Billboard." Like I said with Sara's other singles, this song exemplifies her early career persona as a traditionally-minded country vocalist. The reader needs examples of notable songs that further explain this to better understand her career. It also one of Evans's self-penned tracks. This is an important descriptor to her as an artist indicating that she has several skill sets adding to her credibility as an artist. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you added both only mention the music video (not even the song itself) in rankings or in passing in prose. Those aren't focused on the subject matter and still don't resolve the issue of notability. And this argument you've made on all of these makes no sense to me; why can't these things be discussed on the album article? That one's just barely hanging on at the moment as is (I only didn't PROD it because I found that two-sentence Entertainment Weekly review that I added), but if you've got all this info about the songs on the album why can't those be there? Surely with their powers combined we can make one notable album article. This "the reader needs examples" bit doesn't preclude that. QuietHere (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you are not in the majority here. Also, I do not think you should have any business explaining notability for a subject you are not knowledgeable in. This is clear from your response above. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please be civil. Lamona (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billboard charted single with reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability with chart appearance on Billboard. Seems to be enough independent sources. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: I've posed a query about this song's chart run at WT:SONGS, hoping to clear up my own apparent confusion at some of the policy in question. I'd prefer to see a consensus established there before this closes, if that's allowed, as it may have a significant effect on this AFD's outcome. Thank you for your patience. QuietHere (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the song itself charted, I see no detailed coverage of the song itself in any of the supplied sources and because it carries the name of the album, finding coverage of it was more difficult. Unless the previous !voters can show some of those sources that discuss the song's coverage, their opinions should be discounted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is a Billboard review of the single itself, which is significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number 44 peak on a genre-specific chart is not really notable, nor is a music video receiving airplay on a country music TV channel. Album reviews that describe the song don't establish notability. Yes there is one Billboard review of the single itself, but there is nothing that cannot be adequately said by expanding the album article (which is currently start-class). Heartfox (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Sammi Brie (talk · contribs), @Hog Farm:, @Martin4647: for their expertise. Also if kept, I think the article should be renamed Three Chords and the Truth (Sara Evans song) since Chase Rice also has a song of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting SIGCOV, but mostly for the album as a whole, which makes me think a redirect is merited: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a 1999 Entertainment News Wire report which notes the album had "critical acclaim but no airplay" and prompted Evans to rethink her strategy: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/99809290/
a review in the Dallas Morning News (republished) which also mentions its airplay problems: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/99809393/
a review in The Tennessean: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/99809555/

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. Sources presented above are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure it meets the notability standards for the charting, but it's gained enough critical review/discussion to pass notability otherwise.Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I click on the source listed as Coleman, Kathy. "Sara Evans – Three Chords and the Truth CD review". About.com I am taken to an article about a Faith Evans. This may have to do with the change in ownership and name of about.com, but if anyone has access to the original source, please make the needed change. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding significant sources for this song, and having checked the sources in the article many did not verify the statements in the article, and two are dead links. If there is SIGCOV for the album then a redirect to the article for the album would make sense, although the name of the album and this song are close enough that that might not be necessary. However, the sources mentioned above are not in that article, and it definitely needs them. p.s. The Allmusic link in this article is to a search on the song title, and it turns up a whole host of other songs and albums with this or a similar title. If you are searching you may need to dig down to make sure that you've hit the Sara Evans song. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Three Chords and the Truth (Sara Evans album)/Delete. No automatic notability without significant sources – sources are about the album as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Lies (song), another song off this album, was closed as "keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent album page. About.com was deemed not a reliable source at WP:RSN at the discussion here. References to about.com have generally been removed from the majority of music articles particularly those at GA-level. While charting can indicate notability, WP:NSONGS does state "probably" but it must be backed up by other coverage. At this stage merge to the album page is a better option. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:35, 2 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!} 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian_Film_Institute_Awards_2005[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Australian Film Institute Awards 2005

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

There is already an identical article on the same topic - [[10]] Ward-draW (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See 2005 Australian Film Institute Awards.--Grahame (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grahamec... JarrahTree 08:45, 1 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!} 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Curry's Unanimous MVP Season[edit]

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

An unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Stephen Curry#Unanimous MVP and historic season (2015–2016). I don't see the potential for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here. Details can also be placed at his team's season page, 2015–16 Golden State Warriors season. —Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Basketball. —Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curry's own page has substantial content about this season. Any relevant information about this season contained in the MVP article that is not already covered there can be merged there. If there is no relevant information missing from the Curry article then this can be simply deleted. Rlendog (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No need to duplicate the same content. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Stephen Curry#Unanimous MVP and historic season (2015–2016). Already covered adequately there, so no need to merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 3 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. Katie^talk 13:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otis T. Carr[edit]

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

This article relies too much on prmary sources. That is a problem for any article, but especially one on someone who was clearly a fringe figure John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maryland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are the first three articles I found at Newspapers.com; there are many, many more. [11],[12],[13] This is plenty of WP:SIGCOV, many articles, with lots of depth, easily meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Book There are also several book mentions, including one that includes his name in the title: Men Of Mystery Nikola Tesla and Otis T. Carr: Weird Inventions Of The Strangest Men Who Ever Lived! Jacona (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional books in which he's mentioned on the jacket: The Way Out World: UFOs, ESP, Aliens, Reincarnation, and More!, Nikola Tesla: Free Energy and the White Dove, UFO-related phenomena : Hollow Earth, Men in Black, Crop circle, Alien abduction, Cattle mutilation, Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology and ufology, Glenn Dennis, Contactee, UFO religion, Unexplained disappearances, Ley line, Star jelly. In addition, there's JOYLAND, ALIENS AND THE MEN in BLACK BEHIND OTIS T. CARR'S FLYING SAUCER which includes him in the title. Jacona (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources out there. A nut or con artist, but a moderately notable one. He's even given a paragraph in a Montreal Gazette newspaper article,[14] so his "fame" is international. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disruptive nomination. Nominator knows perfectly well about WP:NEXIST and that the answer for a sourcing problem is a reference template (already there), NOT an AfD. The subject meets the WP:GNG per abundance of WP:SIGCOV. WP:SNOW clearly applies to this nomination. gidonb (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyaanwar[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability at all could be found. We don't have a speedy deletion criterion for books, so here we are. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK. IndaneLove (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has WP:NBOOK and WP:NPOV concerns. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's basically just somebody saying how cool the book is. I've seen other articles from the creator before, and this is one of the most POV. Asparagusus (talk) 14:33, 3 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 under G11 per Bbb23. (non-admin closure) agtx 16:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O Beto de Cascais[edit]

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

Largely unverifiable. I can't find good info on the iPOP award, he doesn't seem to be included in the first source (Be Art), and so on. His youtube parody exists[15] but is not notable, this is a blog and doesn't mention him (at least not his "beto" nickname, perhaps it is using his real name but no way to match this with any certainty): in either case, the iPOP website[16] used as a source here gives no results for either that other name nor for Beto. And don't get me started on the royal heritage claims... Fram (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Portugal. Fram (talk) 12:14, 29 April 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 AOL. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sessions@AOL[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable TV show and album. Zero sourcing besides one AllMusic article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Television. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a disambiguation of multiple albums which are recordings from the series. Are all those also non-notable? Notability for a series doesn't expire just because a platform's viability does. Nate • (chatter) 07:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all but three of the entries on the disambiguation page currently redirect to the artists' discography pages, I would say yes, non-notable. And the three that don't all have abysmal to no sourcing, so they're probably not notable either. My greater concern is that the main platform has no sourcing and none seems to exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:05, 16 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!} 04:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: All of the entries on that disambiguation page that weren't redirects have been deleted via WP:PROD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:22, 23 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]

Redirect to AOL. Fails WP:GNG per nom. A brief discussion about it in the article can do. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to AOL would be enough for now. NavjotSR (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I ignored the sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Preece[edit]

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

Lengthy (apparently self) promotional article. No hint of notability per guidelines. agtx 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also cannot find any WP:RS covering the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I agree it’s tone is self-promotional, reads like WP:RESUME. Non-notable individual with insufficient sourcing to meet the standard for an article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion with most sources being his own website. No songs that charted, no awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotion. Notability is not establishing from available references. DMySon (talk) 11:09, 30 April 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 International Socialist Tendency#Affiliate organisations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linkswende[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable. The corresponding article on dewiki was deleted in 2009 for being non-notable. The article content hasn't changed much since then and I think the same still holds. I found plenty of news coverage for a lawsuit against this organisation by Strache e.g. [17], but that's not enough for WP:ORG. HTinC23 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or one might consider redirect to International Socialist Tendency#Affiliate organisations, if appropriate. de:Linkswende is a disamb page with a link to International Socialist Tendency. HTinC23 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Austria. HTinC23 (talk) 01:45, 15 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!} 04:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per HTinC23. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 4 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 unclear after 3 weeks, with the only expressions leaning to keep but without much conviction. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qalb (programming language)[edit]

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

Not notable; only one reputable source (The Register). elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has a 2nd independent source, to Mic (media company), by a known (and disgraced, but not in a way that should affect the usability of the source) reporter, in the 'Further reading' section. The sourcing looks just about adequate to document the language. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:53, 16 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!} 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - we have two sources providing SIGCOV. While I don't think there is all that much more interesting to be said about the language, now apparently a dormant project, the interaction between programming languages and human languages is an interesting and underdocumented one, and the article seems to be doing no harm. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Lewandowski[edit]

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

Prod deleted on the basis that subject meets the now-obsolete football notability criteria. 98 appearances in a 3rd-level national league with no substantial media coverage is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. agtx 11:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a WP:BEFORE done on this? A 3rd level team in some countries is very different to a 3rd level in others. The Serie C is a pretty decent league and while I'm relying completely on Google Translate, that first reference is a very good write up and could easily be used to expand the article. Then there is this decent blurb on his signing with ACR Messina and this blurb here, this write up here and a bit here, here and here. Given the number of games he has played, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more but my translation skills leave a lot to be desired too.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 15:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Playing for a third-level team in any country is not, by itself, an indication notability. The question isn't whether the article could be expanded. The question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources of this person. There is one, single full length article about the subject in a reliable source. Then there's an article and a one paragraph blurb on a local sports website, a routine game write up on another local sports website, and offhand routine mentions elsewhere. That is not enough to establish notability. agtx 16:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG per sources that User:NZFC found. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG per sources details above. Giant Snowman 11:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG, no BEFORE done, terrible nomination.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would urge the closer to apply policy rather than the keep !votes of contributors unwilling or unable to let go of WP:NFOOTY. In any other area, this type of coverage would not be deemed significant. It is routine. agtx 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NFOOTY now redirects to WP:NSPORT as no special rules for football were needed. Said opinions closely follow WP:SPORTCRIT and the WP:GNG, hence are much better rooted in policy and guidelines than this comment. Also, prodding an article where opposition to deletion is to be expected is a clear violation of WP:PROD. There is not even the beginning of a case here for deletion, let alone for prodding! gidonb (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting opposition and am frankly surprised to find it. This is a clear deletion. agtx 15:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets criteria per sources above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be disagreement over whether this article satisfies WP:NSONG but the general consensus here is to Keep the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shame About That[edit]

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

Sources don't prove notability independent of the album the song comes from. Previous PROD was removed by User:GB_fan in favor of redirecting to the album article (which is my preferred solution), but the redirect was subsequently undone by User:Donaldd23 and now the article is back where it started, without any other subsequent changes to address my original issue. QuietHere (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Three Chords and the Truth (Sara Evans album) per nom. XtraJovial (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, single charted on Billboard. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charted Billboard single with multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a charting single with reviews from The Washington Post. It was given a description from journalists and writers, as mentioned in the "background" section. The song correlates with Sara Evans' early career persona as a traditionally-oriented country vocalist. This article proves this to the reader in ways that the Three Chords and the Truth album could not. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: I've posed a query about this song's chart run at WT:SONGS, hoping to clear up my own apparent confusion at some of the policy in question. I'd prefer to see a consensus established there before this closes, if that's allowed, as it may have a significant effect on this AFD's outcome. Thank you for your patience. QuietHere (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NSONGS is clear that charting alone is not enough to meet notability criteria. None of the sources discuss the song at length, and that is what is required for notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Lies (song), another song off this album, was closed as "keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song charted on Billboard and passes WP:NSONG. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:35, 30 April 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) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Lysyuk[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
uk.wikipedia.org has a lot more info on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. There does seem to be in-depth coverage here (1).

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

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

The result was Speedy-deleted by User:Muboshgu as a blatant hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Reconquisita[edit]

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

While there are sources about a Byzantine Reconquista (not a "Reconquisita" though), these mostly apply to the 10th or 11th century, and none seem to be about a post-1453 reconquista. The Nicol 2002 source doesn't use the term Reconquista, the Simon David Phillips source only mentions an "Iberian reconquista" once, but not the one treated in this article. While the article purports to be about battles from 1453-1492, the quote about the 15,000 to 50,000 Ottoman dead is about the 1522 siege of Rhodes against the Knights Hospitaller, who aren't even mentioned as belligerents in the infobox. So, a hoax or at best a completely misunderstood and mangled retelling of the Nicol source? Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page contains no body, just a mostly-unreferenced infobox, created in mainspace after it timed out in draftspace. The namespace is misspelled, and the intended namespace is used differently by Byzantine historians, mostly in reference to events of the 10th century, with some extending it as early as 7th and as late as 11th, but not these events of the 15th century. I am not familiar enough to know if Byzantine historians treat this half-century as a coherent period for which a single article would be appropriate, but even were this the case, it would need a different namespace and actual textual content, so even if it is a 'completely misunderstood and mangled' rendering of the source material, WP:TNT would still be appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the talk page of the article creator, it looks as if they are involved with "alternate history", i.e. fiction writing. Fram (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - They did have drafts with "(alternate history)" and "alternate" in the namespaces, but with the deleted drafts unviewable it is unclear they didn't just portray alternative POVs (i.e. content forks) rather than alternative-history (fiction). Immaterial though - even WP:AGF, the page should be deleted. Agricolae (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking here at what the start of Draft:Prayz Constantine said, I think we are well into fiction land. However, like you say, it ultimately doesn't matter. Fram (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duck quacking loudly, spelling as observed by fram, weirdness of the sources as explained by agricolae - the iberian context played into byzantium/constantinople almost smells of latter day monty python or even better george bush analogy of border relations between canada and mexico have never been better JarrahTree 15:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the talk page of the creator is sufficient evidence in itself - repeated declined and deleted weirdness? JarrahTree 15:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has no prose whatsoever. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like someone was playing around in the wiki sandbox and published it in the main space in error. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Kadı Message 23:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even an article: it is a battlebox and a few references. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. The infobox is a blatant hoax; the Byzantine Empire never reconquered Anatolia from the Ottomans. The sources are fake and this article might well be Europa Universalis IV-inspired alternate history. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu, hi, could you please close the discussion also? Kadı Message 06:10, 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!} 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 (film series)[edit]

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

This article of a supposed film series is nothing but WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The films listed have nothing in common except the lead actor and "No. 1" title. Not a single source discusses topic as a "film series" as whole, thus failing WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I can find are this and this. The sources call it a film series/franchise although there is no relation between the films. It is not a notable series like Akki's Khiladi. It is similar to Chiranjeevi's Khaidi films. There is not enough content to warrant a separate article. DareshMohan (talk) 23:25, 29 April 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. Neither of the keep votes present even a single source to suggest even passing coverage that could be considered to be substantial enough to suggest GNG. The first keep vote rests solely on the premise that paying in the Egyptian Premier League is sufficient for notability when no league carries that presumption. The second keep vote makes no sense as an argument at all. I presume it is trying to accuse the nominator of not carrying out a decent search for sources prior to nomination but presents nothing to suggest there are sources. AfD is not a vote and with not a single source is presented to suggest GNG, the consensus is to delete Fenix down (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Abdel Aziz[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad nomination. The article was last updated in 2016 when the guy had already played 30 matches for a club in the Egyptian Premier League. With that many first-class matches (and counting), it is obvious that the player is notable and that the article is in need of update and expansion. It already carries a refimprove tag but the priority is update. If the nominator has done a complete BEFORE and there really isn't anything out there in Egyptian sources, then there is nothing to stop the nominator from complying with WP:PRESERVE and doing a redirect to a suitable list of Egyptian footballers. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the closer will ignore this non-argument. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the closer and other editors, please explain in detail how the above is a "non-argument". And, for the record, accusing another editor of deliberately presenting a non-argument is a breach of WP:AGF and very close to a breach of WP:NPA. Do NOT write anything like that again about me or anyone else. If the closer is a sysop, they may wish to give due consideration to the breach of AGF. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination itself, there is no inherent notability from playing in Egypt and no indication that the nominator did not perform a WP:BEFORE. I did a search, both in English in Egyptian sources and while there are several routine transfer articles on him, didn't find anything that I found substantial enough for him to pass GNG. If anybody has better luck in finding sources, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability on BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:55, 3 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 List of Boland representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Prinsloo[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At worst this is a redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers - an obvious ATD exists, there are various reasons for redirecting, the name is clearly unusual etc... The subject would have met the version of NCRIC which previously existed: there are some passing mentions I could immediately find in internet news sources, but nothing particularly in depth that's obvious and he falls into that awkward era where it's not generally possible to easily access news archives but when online news sources are rarely archived, especially from South Africa - he's known to have played for Brackenfell CC which has tweeted something about him in Afrikaans, so it's also possible that sources may be in that language. On the whole I would suggest that sources will probably exist, but are unlikely to be found easily without access of hard copy archives. Right now I'd struggle to argue keep, but I honestly can see no reason whatsoever that I would ever argue delete - this is as clear a redirect candidate as I can recall and I'm struggling to understand why this has come to AfD when such an obvious ATD exists. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers I'm also on redirect for this one. Obviously the guy exists and played for a few years for Boland, but as BST says this was a period where coverage for cricketers of this level in SA was more limited, and with Afrikaans likely being the dominant language for sources if they were to exist it makes them more difficult to find. Redirect is perfect in this situation as it recognises that he played a bit, and would have passed old notability guidelines, but there's currently not enough there, but also gives us the opportunity to re-add the article is suitable sourcing emerges. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers per WP:PRESERVE which is editing policy whereas SIGCOV is merely a guideline. As BST rightly says, there is an obvious ATD here when the guy played in SIXTEEN top-class matches and therefore has notability potential. This is the second bad nomination by Ficaia that I've found in the last few minutes. There is absolutely nothing to stop Ficaia from doing a straight redirect themselves if they really can't find anything, instead of bringing it here and wasting other people's time. If the guy had played in only a Boland state competition, assuming such is not top-class, then the article should of course be deleted, but that is not the case. I have actually voted redirect because the consensus is heading that way but, if I had been the first to find this AfD, I would have recommended keep with a refimprove tag. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 11:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played 3 first-class and 13 List A matches; in one of his List A matches he made a century. Meets WP:GNG, and sources likely exist in Afrikaans (we are not an English language sourced only encyclopedia). StickyWicket (talk) 14:19, 30 April 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. No penalty against creating a draft should better sources appear as his career progresses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Emtiaj[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Subject has had significant roles in only one film. Sources are generally passing mentions , adverts and listings. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. He is quite famous in Bangladesh. Many people write her name Shah Imtiaz instead of Shah Emtiaj. He played the side rule. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. There are enough references in his name. TV Guide Profile, Filmi Beat Profile, Alpha News, Netflix Movies Credit, Upcoming Film Liger(Cast) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueteach (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV. Sources are generally passing mentions , adverts and listings. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. Purely promotional without any SIG:COV. Not even in WP:SEC. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. The nominator was a sock but there is still a vote to Delete and no support for keeping this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Basnet[edit]

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

Non-notable film producer. Lacking significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Thus failed WP:FILMMAKER. DMySon (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Nepal. DMySon (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that not a single movie he has directed or produced has an article (the one blue link in the film list is a DAB page) would point to this person being non-notable. The article was also written by its subject, which appears to be his sole purpose for coming here. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DMySon is a sock of GermanKitty and was blocked today, 3 May 2022. Article was reviewed on NPP by DMySon. See here --Whiteguru (talk) 23:04, 4 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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23: CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Sajid Ali[edit]

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

Nothing is notable about the topic. Repeatedly re-creation of a non-notable subject. Un-referenced article fails WP:GNG. And the subject must be salted.DMySon (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Music, Entertainment, and India. DMySon (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage coming up in searches, not otherwise notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 30 April 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!} 06:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hawkins[edit]

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

Dr. Hawkins seems awesome and everything I want in an amazing public servant. Unfortunately, after trying my best to prove otherwise, I don't think she presently meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. agtx 03:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't access Washington Post articles, so can anyone say how much coverage the article cited gives her? Also this one 1 CT55555 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The profile of 6 women atmospheric scientists devotes about 2-3 paragraphs to each, and 3 paragraphs to Hawkins. The other article is not mainly about her, but quotes her brief-ish-ly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Two to three paragraphs in the Washington Post isn't very deep coverage, but it isn't trivial either, and it's the Washington Post. Her award likewise isn't a nobel prize, but nor is it a pay for play thing or something trivial at all. She is quoted a lot in media, not just in the Washington Post article mentioned above. Google scholar has articles she co-authored that have citation counts of 150, 123, 92 etc - not incredible, but also still something. Each of these factors alone would not establish notability, as I see it but combined add up to enough to create at least a start-level article and sufficiently notable to justify having an article. CT55555 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lady in Scotland with the same name. I used her name and added "weather" and got a few hits in Gbooks [18]. Something in Forbes, which just looks like a rehash of the Washington Post article [19]. One mention in the Black Engineer magazine [20]. She's been a key-note speaker at a few conferences, one in Jstor. I think she's just barely notable. I see nothing wrong with keeping a high level woman in a government job to help counter gender bias on Wikipedia. Inclined to leave it/keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There isn't particularly deep coverage of her, however, she does hold a relatively high-level appointment and she appears to have a relatively solid publication record that would qualify her as WP:ACADEMIC anyway.00:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see little evidence of WP:NPROF -- the top-cited papers appear to have around 30 citations. (The similarly-named person in another field could cause a little confusion here.) This leaves WP:BASIC. I think that a couple paragraphs in the Washington Post is well short of WP:SIGCOV, and I don't see any other reliable sources that are beyond glancing mentions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She's a government meteorologist, not an academic, so I think WP:PROF is the wrong criterion and we should evaluate her by WP:GNG. (Also, most of the citations in Google Scholar by "Michelle Hawkins" are by a different person, a British bird scientist; the American meteorologist's academic publications definitely are not enough for WP:PROF.) The coverage of Hawkins at [21], [22], and [23] is all I think reliable, and in-depth, but as government publications about a government employee maybe not independent enough. As well, we have a three-paragraph profile on her in the Washington Post (clearly in-depth, reliable, and independent), another profile from ArcGIS (in-depth and independent but of unclear reliability), US Black Engineer (reliable and independent but not in-depth), UMBC (reliable and independent but not in-depth). Really there's only one source that ticks all three boxes of reliability, depth, and independence but so many others come close that it pushes me towards the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1055 (disambiguation). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 1055[edit]

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

This fails WP:NLIST, as sources do not discuss the highways numbered 1055 as a group in a significant manner. As such, the list of highways numbered 1055 is non-notable. Along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 1188, the article should be redirected to 1055 (disambiguation). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, Louisiana, and Texas. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—someone could have just done it and avoided and AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 07:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to 1055 (disambiguation)? Djflem (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: part of an established pattern of such lists of numbered roads. PamD 08:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator:@Mhawk10::Do you mean merge? a redirect without relevant content serves no purpose.Djflem (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to disambiguation page as per nominator's suggestion. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Disambiguation. Agletarang (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are over 1500 pages in Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, virtually none of which are actually needed as separate pages. Reywas92^Talk 02:37, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gray (politician)[edit]

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

The individual clearly fails WP:NPOL for de jure notability, so he'd have to pass some other notability guideline (such as WP:NBASIC) to be notable. To a bit of my surprise, I was unable to find significant coverage of Gray from his years in the Trump administration. There was lots of trivial coverage (a sentence or two in a few pieces, or a name-check in a few others), but I can't find any sources that cover him non-trivially in that context. There is coverage of him in the context of the special senate election in Oklahoma, but that appears to be the only subject in which he's discussed significantly by an independent reliable source. As such, the article appears to be a WP:BLP1E, with that one event being the individual's current campaign for Senate. As such, the article should be redirected to 2022 United States Senate special election in Oklahoma, where the article subject can be covered in sufficient death, or it should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and Oklahoma. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs a Trump Administration official, now running in a major US Senate race, it seems appropriate to have a page, especially as he gains further notoriety in his race. 104.0.117.129 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"Per Wikipedia guidelines, Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable" 104.0.117.129 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he wins the general election he will be notable. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for unelected candidates to get free adversitement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate special election in Oklahoma#Republican primary. Per nominator, the subject presently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and dosen't qualify for a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate special election in Oklahoma#Republican primary. While he doesn't meet WP:NPOL at this time and chief of staff of a government council isn't a position that guarantees notability, I think there is value in preserving the page's history. KidAd • SPEAK 17:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and John. Redirect doesn’t make sense to me as the article already includes him in that fashion, as a mention. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, if the consensus is to remove this article, I recommend deletion instead of redirecting. He is one candidate in a 10+ primary, so I doubt the article will provide sufficient coverage to justify the redirect. Second, I do think Gray is notable for two things: serving in the Trump admin and running for Senate. I'm not convinced being notable for only two things is enough to justify keeping the article, but I don't think this is quiet WP:BLP1E.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the increased scrutiny on Trump Administration officials running for public office, it seems that this is an appropriate level of notoriety to warrant a wikipedia page. 104.0.117.129 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)— 104.0.117.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Database entries are not considered significant coverage, as generally speaking they are mere lists of basic facts/statistics without elaboration. It is not unreasonable that the nom would not have mentioned the database entry in their nomination. Redirecting rather than deleting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Yves Mallat[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sufficient significant source coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag with refimprove. Failing that, redirect to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres per Lugnuts and WP:PRESERVE, etc. The nom says I can't find any significant coverage. Well, I immediately found this and I wonder how much more there is out there in Lebanese sites and in books about athletics, the Olympics, Lebanese sport, etc. Johnpacklambert, why do you vote delete when SIGCOV is only a guideline whereas PRESERVE is editing policy? Surely it is obvious that a redirect helps any future editor who does have access to a book about Lebanese athletics. Would you please THINK about an article's potential before going for the delete option? Say, for example, we have two English footballers whose articles are both one-liners with a single source. One of them played in a handful of EFL matches, the other is a long-term non-league player who has never represented an EFL club. Common sense must tell you that the former has notability potential and that, per PRESERVE, his article should be redirected (perhaps permanently, perhaps temporarily) to an appropriate list of players. The non-league player does not have notability potential and his article should of course be deleted. Persistent demands for delete in the face of PRESERVE is a major cause of conflict within AfD. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. Just because someone spent 3 minutes creating an article along with a few dozen others or maybe even hundreds that day does not make that a subject that Wikipedia has to cover forever for all time in some way. That is what we would end up being the case if we preserved every minor mention of anyone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the one source NGS cites above is a completely trivial mention. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if the nominator had done a thorough BEFORE, they would have found the World Athletics site and should then have mentioned it in the nomination as the only other source found. It is by no means the first time that this editor has failed to complete a thorough BEFORE. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 12:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Redirect is not suitable, as there is a Lebanese race car driver by the same name; see 2005 Eurocup Mégane Trophy and 2004 FIA GT Zhuhai 500km. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject, none is present in the article and the one posted here in the AfD is a database listing. Alvaldi (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Per Lugnuts. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:17, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prajesh Sen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The sources are not valuable. Kadı Message 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and India. Kadı Message 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly remove the deletion notice from the page -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajesh_Sen

The page should not be a deletion candidate. The person is active and page is also active as well. not sure the criteria for deletion selection. Please do the needful. Strangerqwer (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajesh_Sen should not be a candidate for deletion. Not sure what is the reason for selecting this page for the same. kindly remove the deletion notice from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerqwer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 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!} 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't examined the sources but this is a director of several films with articles on Wikipedia. There should be coverage of his work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough media coverage for this filmmaker and thus passes WP:FILMMAKER. MickyShy (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above subject passes WP:FILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:33, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Beta Chi[edit]

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

It exists and apparently does some good work, but I am unable to find any evidence of notability. Borderline A7. Star Mississippi 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete web search shows no notable coverage. At best, there are some mentions in listings and directories, not enough to establish notability. Rlink2 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. CT55555 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep I've provided some additional cleanup, a comprehensive table of chapters and a number of references since the article was tagged with this unnecessary AfD. It's far more helpful to FIX apparent gaps in references versus rush to delete, as we are not running out of space on our servers. I just did so. About notability: Fraternal and Sorority groups normally reference the seminal reference on the subject, Baird's Manual, which over its 20 editions stretching back 150 years had adopted the rule that to be listed an organization must have formed at least three chapters, OR be a local that owns property, and exist for at least ten years. Phi Beta Chi clearly meets this standard. The Fraternity and Sorority Project has adopted that as a reasonable bar to meet for those articles we edit, create and monitor, in keeping with WP guidelines. There have been tens of thousands of non-notable local chapters that do not merit an article, and approximately 1,500 that do, which are tracked by our Project. This particular group has chartered 24 chapters and is almost 50 years old. It is extensively referenced in Baird's and noted on the official university portals where it has active chapters. It has a functional national headquarters and website. It certainly does not merit deletion. Jax MN (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you're most certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to debate your points, but absolutely none of that is in line with a speedy keep. Star Mississippi 20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jax MN: I understand you may have strong feelings about keeping this article, but please see WP:SKCRIT for the speedy keep criteria. Also regarding the table I don't believe that is encyclopedic - please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment - Thank you, AusLondonder. I've had a helpful dialog with Star Mississippi regarding several pages, and believe they PRODed this page in good faith. They noted they understood the rationale I offered for use of the Speedy Keep in this situation, and failing that motion, I'd revert to a simple "Keep". Hence, I provided extensive edits to improve the page, along with references (see below, on RS). It was the timing or potential coordination that concerned me, regarding a succession of deletions of articles about small Christian-themed fraternities and sororities. These pages needed improvement, not deletion. Further, an article about an innocuous trade association for these groups, the United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities, was itself Swift Deleted without even an AfD process.
  
  I get it: These needed more citations, and needed cleanup. But they needed fixing, not deletion. I reject "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism".
  
  To your point on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I agree; but you may be misinterpreting what was added to the table. To explain, I included reference links to portal pages at universities, which we use to prove existence, and notability - not to provide mere contact info. These are NOT websites owned by individual chapters, but rather, university-owned pages where these groups undergo scrutiny to ensure they are valid, operating and approved student organizations. In practice, some of the newest fraternities and sororities are not yet tracked by our seminal reference, the Baird's Manual and online Archive, so we search for other proof of validity/notability. Important to their communities, these organizations hum along without generally being the targets of broad media attention.
  
  Wikipedia would be a far less helpful tool if we were to limit inclusion of fraternities and sororities only to those with extensive media coverage, major newspaper and journal articles. There are some ~100,000+ known groups, but only 1,473 of these are actively tracked by our project, the F&S Project, and of these, only about half have articles (plus 43 DABs). Removing all but those with a long list of external citations would leave us with only the largest, traditional groups, and those relative few that are notorious for some national scandal, or a few with historically-registered buildings. Wikipedia would thus suppress listing of many of the newer, multicultural or affinity groups -- resulting in a biased outcome. Yet these organizations exist, and are provable outside of their own websites and postings. They are recognized by their colleges and universities, and serve significant populations and a continuing flow of members.
  
  Technical help request: I'd change my vote to "Keep" rather than speedy keep, as I do not believe Star had any ill-intent, whatsoever. But I don't know if I should edit my original vote or re-vote. Nor do I want to lose the text of this discussion. Jax MN (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd have been happy to provide you United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities in Draft @Jax MN as I have no doubt you'd improve it, but it was an exact copy of their site and was from inception so while it was deleted as a G11, it could well have been a G12. You'll do best to start over on that one. My only concern re: These are NOT websites owned by individual chapters, but rather, university-owned pages where these groups undergo scrutiny to ensure they are valid, operating and approved student organizations is whether that's truly independent, but that's for someone who isn't the nominator to decide. Re: your last point, you can use <s> and </s> on either end of "speedy" or you can leave it as is with this discussion serving as background. It doesn't matter either way. Star Mississippi 17:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done (strike "Speedy"), and yes, I'd like to work on the UCCFS page in draft form. I've also added another reference to Phi Beta Chi. Jax MN (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Go for it. If it hasn't been a copyright violation, there's no issue with that article existing. I've seen from the Christian sororities article you helped with that you'll leave the Council's in a good place. Thanks re: speedy. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 18:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources book coverage in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage seems routine and shallow to me. More generally, we are very overweight on US-centric topics, and give them more leeway than is otherwise sensible. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Stifle, your rationale doesn't make sense to me. You state that "coverage is routine": yet there is coverage. This particular group moves along doing what it does, notable to its members and far exceeding the bar of notability with many more than just three chapters (24 to date) and existing for over 44 years where ten years is our standard. The adjective "Shallow" is subjective. The fact that the US-based Wikipedia is overweight on US-centric topics seems to be a feature, and not a detractor. --This isn't Wikipedia Italy. For the same reason that I don't comment on the thousands of articles about Australian rules football, leaving that area to others who have a closer affinity, I'd suggest that the detractor votes here are piling on out of a mistaken sense that Christian Fraternities and Sororities ought to be ignored by this resource, or that somehow, WP is running out of space, also a mistaken point of view. (No offense suggested to Australian rules football.) Jax MN (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "coverage is routine", I mean that the coverage shown is not of a depth that suggests notability is met. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific sources have been given and there's not exactly agreement on them. Achieving consensus might be assisted by a source-by-source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally speaking, I consider national fraternities and sororities with multiple verifiable chapters to be notable per WP:ORG. In this case, all of the chapters that this article lists as being active are indeed listed as organizations on their respective universities' web sites. (By contrast, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Psi Epsilon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma Phi Delta (fraternity), none of the supposedly active chapters were listed on their respective universities' web sites.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 29 April 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) 03:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Locke (actor)[edit]

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

per WP:NACTOR. Bradford (Talk) 02:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because his representation not only as an actor but as an activist for LGBTQ+ is notable. And Joe Locke does appear to meet basic notability guidelines due to the relatively extensive coverage he's received from independent sources, and there's a lot of them. It can be reliable and be pondered that he fit's partially in the categories such as WP:NACTOR, and is about to fulfill it. (Luisedavis) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actor notability guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Joe Locke is starring in a recently released series, he is likely to get additional roles later in his career. Deleting the page now would only require adding it again later. Cyber 94 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think there is scope for a potential article here in future, but as the person who initially added a notability tag to his article, I agree that he does not meet NACTOR in the slightest yet. – DarkGlow • 19:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article is still actively improved with lots of contributions recently. I agree that it hasn't meet NACTOR yet but it would be a shame to just remove the page while it can still be worked on. Thariqziyad (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If basic notability guidelines are met by an individual, they do not necessarily need to meet the additional specific criteria laid out in the specific notability categories such as WP:NACTOR as long as the person in question is not part of an exclusion category. Joe Locke does appear to meet basic notability guidelines due to the relatively extensive coverage he's received from independent sources, although it could potentially be argued he could fall under the "single event" exclusion category, it also doesn't appear as though it would be appropriate to list information about his career, which did arguably become notable over Heartstopper under that page instead. - At time same time, it would appear incredibly unlikely that, events that will continue to make this person notable will stop, meaning this page will likely develop more into the future. The alternative to keeping the page here would be draftify the page, in which case we would just basically be making relevant information about Joe Locke that is currently on the page, either unavailable on wikipedia entirely, or accessible in a place where it really isn't obvious or suitable on a basis that is going to be very temporary in nature. I really only see this provide downsides to wikipedia users in this specific instance. In the end, Joe Locke's page appears to be right on the knife's edge between being able to have/not have their own page under wikipedia's guidelines, but I am seeing a clear downside to draftifying or removing the page at this point, thus (perhaps controversially) I am voting to keep the page. Wilburg22 - The insufferable potato! (Click here for my talk page!) 15:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is extensive coverage of the subject by reliable sources, which meets WP:BASIC and passes WP:NACTOR. For these reasons, and per points made Wilburg22, this article should remain. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AuthorAuthor: WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published states" [...] and General notability guideline (WP:N) states that "presumed" means that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" [...] The subject has just made his debut as an actor with this series, I don't think he has enough encyclopedic relevance yet to merit a wiki.

Could it not be redirected to the series page until he achieves true/greater notability? (more roles and important projects for example, awards/nominations etc.) --Miaow 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person passes the notability guidelines, thus I don't support deletion. Auror Andrachome (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with AuthorAuthor. In addition, notability can be established by this article getting on average 30,000 pageviews each day since it was created. --- FULBERT (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you can save the information in the Sandbox of the user who created the article. But definitely the actor is not remarkable. The article has been created since May 2021. Were you waiting for the series to come out to promote the actor here on Wikipedia? Bradford (Talk) 22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford, The issue is not if the actor is remarkable, the issue is he is notable, which he appears to be based on the external evidence in the news, his critical reception in this Netflix role, and the amount of traffic to this article each day. I have no idea about the intentions of the original drafter of the article. FULBERT (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FULBERT Please see WP:POPULARPAGE. Actually the article don't say anything about "his critical reception in this Netflix role". --Miaow (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also agree with AuthorAuthor. Although Heartstopper is a new production, the subject’s portrayal of his character has already received much critical acclaim. The nature of the role is of special interest because of the sensitive and topical issues addressed - teenage sexuality, gender identity, bullying etc. The quality of the acting, in itself, accords notability and I’m certain that the article will only grow as this young actor’s experience increases. The number of visits to the page is high which suggests that the content is valued. Public interest and notability go hand in hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintcake58 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actor notability guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable productions.--Malvoört (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". cagliost (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I literally came upon this Wikipedia article after reading about this British person in American news source. He meets WP:Notability. OCNative (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable person - have seen lots of news sources. Definitely worthy of a wiki BubbleBub (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASIC. Subject has very clearly "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR is secondary. LinkTiger (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LinkTiger above. Peter Ormond 💬 19:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with many points laid out above. TheKaphox T 07:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's been having a lot of media coverage and is speaking out about LGBTQIA+ issues. This page will surely be developed soon enough, seeing as it's going now. 185.26.88.44 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Classic case of WP:NACTOR being overwhelmingly overriden by WP:BASIC due to extensive and across-platform mentions in RSs. Nacaru 21:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Rake[edit]

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

For almost 10 years this has languished as a barely sourced, thinly-veiled resume. Obvious COI creator, and just the other day I removed an attempt to puff this up even more. Nothing of note here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (updated) there are profiles in the Guardian[24], ~~the Daily Mail[25]~~, BBC Radio 4[26] as well as trade press coverage[27].[28]--Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail, I observe that that page came up blank when I followed your hyperlink. The Daily Mail appears to have blanked it for some reason. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link works for me. Maybe a glitch? pburka (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Other Daily Mail pages are not blank. But that one is. Something has been done to it by the Daily Mail. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor coverage in reliable sources. Once being profiled in The Guardian over 10 years is not sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage and therefore notability. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: in-depth coverage both in the Guardian and on the BBC is sufficient to source the a Wikipedia article and passes notability. --hroest 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply having some reliable sources and coverage does not inherently equate to notability. Remove this resume. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:22, 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 01:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Simply having some reliable sources and coverage equates to notability. pburka (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All... two... of them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment other sources include pg 84-88 of this book[29] discussing Rake as theorist, discussion of her academic work here[30] with Mary Daly. Their books is reviewed[31][32]. Rake's role in third wave feminism in Britain mentioned[33]. An article on the Fawcett Society mentioning her role there[34].Jahaza (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been vastly improved by recent editing and no longer reads like an inappropriately promotional CV. Positions held, OBE, and coverage in Guardian etc. as above are sufficient for notability. Elemimele (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guardian: There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. There is nothing promotional.
So what? A single 12 year old profile is news, not evidence of lasting notability. If anything, that being the best source is an argument against this resume page being worth anyone's bandwidth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has held several prominent roles in the UK, particularly as chair of the Fawcett Society. In addition to the many sources mentioned above, Google Scholar finds 2 highly cited works (172,131) and several more moderately cited. There's another long Guardian article about the tea-cup storm over her remarks on marriage: [35]. Another (3rd) review of her (coauthored) book.[36]. Discussion of her LSE work in Financial Times, before she joined Fawcett. [37] Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag lists that should have been on Commons[edit]

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

These pages should be been moved to Commons except the Brazilian one since too long that it had to be split into states on Commons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the lists (that looked like galleries) looked like Commons gallery pages that should be (or already had been) transferred to Commons:

List of city flags in Argentina (gallery list already on Commons)
List of city flags in Belarus (gallery list already on Commons)
Lists of Belgian municipal flags (gallery list already on Commons)
List of Canadian municipal flags (gallery list already on Commons)
List of comunal flags in Chile (gallery list already on Commons)
List of city flags in Colombia (gallery list already on Commons)
List of city flags in Croatia (gallery list already on Commons)
List of city flags in Ecuador (gallery list already on Commons)
List of comunal flags in France (gallery list already on Commons)
List of city flags in Hungary (gallery list already on Commons)
List of municipal flags of Puerto Rico (gallery list already on Commons)
List of city flags in Poland (gallery list already on Commons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.3.39.219 (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flags of populated places of Ukraine (gallery list already on Commons)
and everything on Template:Lists of city flags. Save for some countries like Malta for example since it is linked to List of flags of Malta and Japan's as had they had some info. They can be recreated if info about the designs and adoption were added.

Who's with me on this nom? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Brazil. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note for context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of cities of the United States; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of municipal flags in the Czech Republic; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Delete all for the same reasons given at those AfDs, namely the blatant NOT failure and the fact these are categories-masquerading-as-articles which I think are probably also duplicates of existing Commons categories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are not functionally articles, and we have no gain from the non-article collection of images.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per WP:LISTCRUFT, it is the list of gallery of images of flags that is actually unnecessary, and was already in Wikimedia Commons. 180.214.233.94 (talk / contribs) 21:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There is no need to create this article. per nom. JoyStick101 (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 'cause duplicates of Commons cats. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 18:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Gabe114 (talk) 18:34, 2 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 14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riju Jhunjhunwala[edit]

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

Biography of living person who does not satisfy general notability or political notability. Both a draft and an article have been created, possibly to prevent moving the article into draft space. None of the references in the article are independent significant coverage. They include passing mentions, an interview, and profiles of his company and his foundation. It has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, but many of them are in the Times of India, which is not considered reliable, but it has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, because they do not pass the independent secondary significant coverage test.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Myneta.info	A profile of political candidate information	Yes	No	Probably	No
2	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Long story, but did not find mention of subject	Yes	No, might be a passing mention	Probably not	No
3	WSJ.com	Company profile listing subject as chairman	Yes	No	Yes	No
4	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Did not find mention of subject	Yes	No, might be a passing mention	Probably not	No
5	Indianexpress.com	Story about Panama Papers, passing mention of subject	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	Yes
6	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Passing mention of subject in long story	Yes	No, passing mention	Probably not	No
7	EconomicTimes of Times of India	404 error		No
8	Business Standard	Profile of subject's company	Yes	No	Yes	No
9	EconomicTimes of Times of India	Another corporate profile	Yes	No	Probably not	No
10	EconomicTimes of Times of India	An interview with the subject	No	Yes	Probably not	No
11	DaijiWorld	Profile of foundation established by subject	Yes	Not of subject	?	No
12	Jawahar Foundation	Web site of subject's foundation	No	Not of subject		No
13	The Times of India	News story about an election which the subject ran in and lost	Yes	No	Mostly not	Yes
14	The Times of India	Story about his wedding	Yes	Not with respect to GNG	Probably not	No
15	News.abplive.com	Story about his wedding	Yes	Not with respect to GNG	?	No

The draft has 8 footnotes, which are mostly the same as in the article, and a URL dump, which has not been checked.

Either the article can be simply deleted, or the draft can be deleted and the article moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Business, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 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!} 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom's detailed examination. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per available Significant coverage, the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Below is the list of published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. And passes WP:THREE.

https://myneta.info/loksabha2019/candidate.php?candidate_id=11147 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/stocks-that-may-not-have-achche-din/articleshow/69464219.cms https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/IN/XNSE/RSWM/company-people/executive-profile/86357100 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/13-of-25-seats-in-rajasthan-to-go-to-polls-on-monday-115-candidates-in-fray/articleshow/69083194.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/garments-/-textiles/pli-for-man-made-fibre-technical-textile-to-boost-sectors-growth-says-rswm-cmd/articleshow/83430692.cms https://www.business-standard.com/company/heg-251/info https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/panama-papers-bhilwara-group-panama-papers-india-list-mossack-fonseca-bhilwara-group-of-companies-2785032/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/heg-ltd/infocompanymanagement/companyid-13630.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ground-level-problems-can-enable-development/articleshow/74795027.cms https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=936764 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/elections/lok-sabha-elections-2019/rajasthan/news/songs-music-dance-to-woo-voters-in-ajmer/articleshow/68772828.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/delhi/A-grand-wedding-reception/articleshow/6002713.cms https://news.abplive.com/movies/salman-khan-in-bina-kaks-daughter-amritas-wedding-throwback-pics-is-something-you-cant-miss-1001809 https://www.newsnationtv.com/india/news/jawahar-foundation-empowering-women-in-rajathan-for-a-brighter-future-258168.html
Thefinaldestiny (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after analysis of all the references provided by the creator, i can find few significant coverage that passes WP:THREE and i can say the subject passes WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above article passes WP:ANYBIO. MickyShy (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources provided don't help exactly. Several WP:TOI sources aren't explicitly reliable. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 13:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete nothing notable in the sources as examined. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Wikipedia's WP:RS. There are many sources which are independently written these are in published reliable sources. 1. The Wall Street Journal - It is a general reliable sources as discussed in Perennial sources, 2 Indian Express resource accepted as reliable per WP:INDIANEXP. 3. Economic Times considered as generally reliable and notable. And passes WP:THREE. JoyStick101 (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep votes simply repeat the same links questioned in the source analysis without explaining why. Of the WP:THREE sources provided in the previous vote, WSJ is a simple company listing; ET articles are interviews and IE just a quote. Hemantha (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After doing a close analysis of all the references i would go with Robert McClenon. And changing my vote to Delete. DMySon (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to source analysis by Robert McClenon. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: Struck various sock !votes, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: DMySon is a sock of GermanKitty and was blocked today, 3 May 2022. He reviewed his own article (this article) on New Page Patrol. Reverted. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable in the sources as examined.--Whiteguru (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert's excelent source analysis NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Nom's source analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dong-Eui University. (non-admin closure) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dong-eui Medical Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Could not find significant coverage in English. I would reconsider if something is found in Korean. Note there is no Korean wiki article. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and South Korea. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth secondary coverage found in English. Just listings in directories. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dong-Eui University, of which it is a part. agtx 03:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Agtx and WP:ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The two "keep" opinions do not address the detailed analysis of the sources undertaken by the nominator and Agricolae. Sandstein 07:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randal McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim[edit]

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

Fairly run-of-the-mill businessperson who is also a nobleman, but who never sat in the House of Lords because they inherited their title after the House of Lords Act 1999. The sources on this person do not help confirm that the person is notable; only genealogy websites pop up, and the rest is not significant coverage, reliable, or independent from the subject.

Source assessment follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Peter W. Hammond, ed., The Complete Peerage or a History of the House of Lords and All its Members From the Earliest Times, Volume XIV: Addenda & Corrigenda (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1998), page 31		? No consensus at WP:RSN on this issue. Certainly better than self-published peerage websites.	?	? Unknown
Marie Louise McConville, Earl of Antrim's funeral to take place in Glenarm next week , The Irish News, 6 August 2021, accessed 17 August 2021			Passing mention	✘ No
Burke's Peerage, vol. 1 (1999), p. 90		~ Only reliable for genealogy, per WP:RSP. However, family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY.		? Unknown
The Earl of Antrim, highcouncilofclandonald.com, accessed 17 August 2021	Subject of the article is part of the council and the publication is therefore not independent	self-published website		✘ No
"New Members appointed to the board of The Royal Parks". DCMS. Retrieved 28 August 2021.			No mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

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

Given the fact that some editors seem confused about the deletion rationale, I'd like to make the last sentence explicit: it fails WP:BASIC. Pilaz (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Pilaz (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On balance Delete. In another time someone in his position would have got enough coverage for an entry even if they had not had a seat in a national legislature; before 1963, not all Scottish peers could sit in the Lords, so they were all eligible only for a relatively brief period (certainly in this context) of 36 years, but if any such articles on here were up for deletion, sources probably could be found. But not in this case, I would suspect. His class does still have significant power and privilege at various levels, but much of their power and status has been ceded to larger-scale, global capitalists, and our policies should reflect that. RobinCarmody (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not about importance, or power, or privilege, and it does not treat a seat in the House of Lords as an acid test, although quite oddly that would have settled the question. The policy just requires a certain level of coverage in sources independent of the subject, and we have that. (A bit hard to see how all the sources can be called genealogy websites, as not one of them is that.) Moonraker (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources also need to be secondary, reliable and provide significant coverage. All of this is covered under WP:BASIC. Pilaz (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, can you perhaps provide more details as to which sources help the article meet WP:BIO, Moonraker? Pilaz (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little coverage of him specifically. Also delete the equally unnotable 7th, 8th and 9th earls. The previous title holders already redirect to Earl of Antrim#Earls of Antrim, second creation (1785). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an extraordinary thing to say. The 8th earl, e.g. was the chairman of the National Trust and has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. This doesn't seem like a policy-based vote as much as a class-based one. Atchom (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources have been added:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Debrett's People of Today	WP:RSP - "There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage."		✘ No
Agriland		Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on peerage sources that seem the primary coverage for this individual. By their nature these are prosopographical, an attempt to give information on everyone belonging to a specified class, with the only inclusion criteria being whether someone falls within the Venn diagram defining that class (an analogy would be a school yearbook or membership directory). The lack of editorial judgment determining inclusion renders such sources (Burke's and Hammond in this case) less weighty in contributing to WP:GNG than a source where an editor or author has selected a specific individual as more worthy of personal coverage than other individuals. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that analogy necessarily stands. If the category of people is notable in and of itself, there is no reason why a book about all of them shouldn't contribute to notability. For instance, a lot of French political biographies use the standard biographical dictionary of French legislators as a source, biographies of US judges commonly use material from the biographical dictionary of US judges, and so on. You get the idea. Atchom (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a previous editor has said, not having a seat in the Lords is not the one-step test to deletion. The article as it stands is sources to the requisite level for notability to be established. Some of the previous votes (including the editor who suggested deleting an article about a man who has an ODNB entry) do not seem to be based on policy as much as a certain sort of politics. Atchom (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the deletion rationale, when I wrote The sources on this person do not help confirm that the person is notable; only genealogy websites pop up, and the rest is not significant coverage, reliable, or independent from the subject., I was referencing WP:BIO. I thought that was obvious, but I'm glad you brought it up, and I have added a subsequent comment to my nomination to reflect that it wasn't. Pilaz (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the fact that they never sat in the House of Lords, I referenced it because it avoids people incorrectly claiming that it meets WP:NPOL as member of a national legislature. See this list for post-1999 AfD on British noblemen who never sat in the House of Lords. Pilaz (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pilaz, I agree with you about WP:NPOL, but that is simply a policy which overrides WP:N when the GNG is not complied with, which it is here. All the sources seem reliable and independent, with a slight blur about highcouncilofclandonald.com, which has an editor called Macdonald who may well turn out to be a tenth cousin of the subject. When you say “only genealogy websites pop up”, I see none. If you mean The Complete Peerage, that is a huge printed source with editors. May I ask which other sources you are challenging? Moonraker (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My source assessment is in the nomination; and you haven't addressed the lack of significant coverage, which is integral to the GNG, for the two news articles. As for the The Complete Peerage, it is likely a tertiary source (a compilation anthology) and therefore probably can't satisfy the GNG (due to secondary source requirements). I also wonder if this Earl gets more than a passing mention in there. highcouncilofclandonald.com is definitely not independent from the subject, and is a WP:SPS, hence not reliable. And Burke's is insufficient, since Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Pilaz (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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