< April 29	May 01 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ilian Bergala[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 23:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and France. Kadı Message 23:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Article's sources are merely passing mentions of his filmography. A Google search returned mostly either primary or self-published sources - no evidence of notability. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 02:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I am not finding news links that can support any notability policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Space Battleship Yamato. Consensus is against keeping, but split between (selective) merge and redirect. Whether to merge any content from the history, therefore, remains up to interested editors. Sandstein 09:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yamato (fictional spacecraft)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Yamato (fictional spacecraft) (3rd nomination)

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

This article is full of cruft and has still remained awful for a decade. It's best to redirect into Space Battleship Yamato or something else. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect - to Space Battleship Yamato. The article is currently completely devoid of sources, and is composed entirely of in-universe plot summary. As an extremely notable franchise, there are tons of sources on the various series themselves, and most of those sources, of course, talk about the titular ship as part of the overall discussion. But, I am not seeing any reliable sources that go over the inner-workings of the fictional ship in such detail that a WP:SPLIT is actually warranted rather than presenting that information on the main page for the franchise. In that sense, I would have preferred to have been able to suggest a Merge of some of the non-plot information, but the fact that nothing here is being cited to reliable, secondary sources makes that a no-go. The previous AFD discussions, the most recent of which was 14 years ago, largely relied on arguments that would not fly today, consisting of a lot of WP:ITSNOTABLE votes, as well as presenting sources that would not actually be valid as reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per the above, but correcting rationale: Elements in a fictional topic don't need to each be independently RS'ed, as long as the topic itself is notable, so some primary sourced material is fine to merge appropriately. Redirect is problematic because there's not much covered about the battleship itself in the main topic, so a merge is a better option. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Fair enough. I was actually referring more towards the "real world" development parts of the article that would have required reliable sources to merge, but if people feel that the main article on the franchise could be beefed up with some additional plot information from this article, I have no objections. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But there is no primary sourced material here to merge, either. (I am totally fine with using primary refs for plot summaries, for the record). This fancruft is below a good fanwiki quality (where there are footnotes to TV episodes/manga chapters/etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per Jclemens, albeit judiciously. Haleth (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect. No referenced conent exist for merging. As written, this fails GNG. Note that some sources do exist (ex. [1]) but it's arguable whether the theme is the TV show or the vessle. It's a bit of like trying to argue that it was the USS Enterprise that was more important than the Star Trek show. And while in the ST case, both entities are notable, I don't think there is sufficient coverage of this anime to warrant the split. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Space Battleship Yamato. I really don't feel comfortable with a merge here, if we do have a merge then it should be limited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selective merge to the main series article. I don't think this requires a full-on section, but there are certainly some verifiable aspects of this topic that would help build the main article. Passes WP:V even if it's dubious on WP:GNG, and there is a very obvious main topic that could stand to be improved. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Verifiability due to no reliable sources, and is not a good search term due to the disambiguation. Avilich (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing for 'keep' did not demonstrate that the available sources meet the bar for WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ali Khalifa el-Zaidi[edit]

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

The one source here seems to be too closely connected with scouting to show that this leader is scouting is notable. Anyway, GNG requires multiple sources, so it is not met. We have previously determined that being awarded the Broonze Wolf is not something that automatically makes someone notable, but without that there is really no justification to having this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon, People, Scouting, and Libya. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There are now two sources. I think the problem is less to do with notability than all the best sources are in Arabic: https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A+%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AF%D9%8A

The article does need expansion.--evrik ^(talk) 20:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No evidence in the article or in this discussion that the article meets WP:ANYBIO or any other relevant notability guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per user Eggishorn. Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist as the previous one did not transclude it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 10
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Bronze Wolf winner not automatically notable does not mean he's not notable - that's an error in logic. There are enough sources to pass WP:BASIC now, Atchom (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletefor failing WP:GNG. Two current sources; one does not mention him, and the other is not independent. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails GNG per BilledMammal. Avilich (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tough one. I can see WP:IMPACT here, and I'm willing to WP:AGF that it's not a hoax or anything. We have no WP:BLP concerns, and the subject lived long enough ago that it's impractical to expect any online news sources to cover that impact. There's "regional barriers" for a lot of editors because an editor would really most likely need to be in Libya to find offline sources. I'm going with Keep and I'm going to use the policy WP:IAR because it's the right thing to do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rakesh Upadhyay[edit]

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

Fails GNG. My WP:BEFORE wasn't helpful. This doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I see his imdb and got one notable project that I have heard of. My friend Ganesha. That alone is not enough I feel. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Delete as fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:SEC, WP:SIGCOV and everything to list here. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makenna Turner[edit]

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

It seems as though this article fails the notability test for biographies on several accords. Although there are primary sources on this person, it seems like this article contains a lot of information that does not bear any major significance in the realm of academia. All three awards listed are limited to just high schoolers and do not reflect any well-known or significant award outside of college scholarships and high school scholarships (see 2c on Notability (academics)). There only seems to be one publication by this person as a second author, but the paper only seems to have 39 citations which do not reflect a significant impact in the realm of academia which likely also fails the criterion number 7 (see 7a on Notability (academics)). Additionally, the criteria for notability in terms of college athletes and coaches are not met either ([2]).

There is an attempt to relay the significance of the person through familiar relations, but that does not "confer any degree of notability" [3]. The article was deleted once in the past but was objected to on the basis of:

Pubic Figure/Child of Public Figure, has verifiable social media, news appearances, published research. Father has Wikipedia article see "Chris Cole (American Football)". Is a D1 athlete for Stanford University. [4]

However, these conditions are not enough to merit the creation of an article. Additionally, there seems to be a conflict of interest in editing from Lilsnoozyvert which might be the subject herself. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Sportspeople. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. She definitely does not meet NPROF, and there is only one ref (local coverage of her being a finalist for a state-wide youth tech award) that could arguably contribute to GNG, which is just not enough. Overall coverage (awards, service) is pretty much what you would expect of a bright young person who earned her way into Stanford.

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Stanford school profile		? moot	✘ No
Coca Cola Scholar bio		? moot	✘ No
NCWIT award bio		? moot	✘ No
[5]		? 8 independent sentences on her in local newspaper affiliate	? Unknown
Playful Computation group bio		? moot	✘ No
Stanford rowing team bio		? moot	✘ No
NCWIT award announcement		? moot	✘ No
CSEdWeek (presumably supposed to link to award announcement)		? moot	✘ No
BSVD article on BSVD advisory meeting she participated in		? moot	✘ No
MileSplit profile			✘ No
article in local news	largely quotes from her	barely 3 sentences that aren't direct or indirect quotes	✘ No
CBS4 Future Leaders profile	profile from the awarding org	? moot	✘ No
nonexistent website, but very likely not independent		? moot	✘ No
personal website (research)		? moot	✘ No
conference proceedings		moot	✘ No
GS profile of her undergrad adviser		? moot	✘ No
Stanford profile of her undergrad adviser		? moot	✘ No
personal website (blog)		? moot	✘ 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)).

JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Per nom and the excellent analysis above. Atchom (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. As above. The coverage she has so far points to "may well be notable in the future", not "notable now". -- asilvering (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per source analysis above. We can revisit the article if she ever hits notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per source analysis and per nom. As per WP:RISING, she may one day certainly be notable. At the present, her career is just not profound enough for WP:ACADEMIC or general WP:BIO.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and per source analysis above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PowerLinks Media[edit]

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

Nah, not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Technology, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Very obviously it is marketing article for not notable company. It is not as per organisation notability policies like WP:NCORP of Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article describing the corporate structure and product range of an advertising firm. Some coverage is available, for example this bylined Startups item, but I am not seeing the level of coverage required to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firmino Pantoja Street[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This article has no sources. The street it is about is located in a small city (Carutapera, Brazil, population about 23,000), and the street itself, judging from Google Maps, is only 6 blocks long. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Thurlby[edit]

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

Just reverted vandal's version which showed he was born in Kenya, but still this person is very non-notable. No genuine review, easily fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weplab[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People Media[edit]

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

Non-notable dating service, fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I am not finding any news links that can help suffice WP:NCORP policy of Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

B2Blogger.com[edit]

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

Non-notable marketing/pr agency -- fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Just like said in nomination, it is a marketing company with no solid standing to meet WP:GNG policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

APO Group[edit]

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

Usual PR stuff. None of the cited sources are reliable, in-depth enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Jsfodness (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Companies, Africa, Middle East, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete whenever I read Africa related article and look for sources sometimes, if I see their name, I sort of know it’s not WP:INDEPENDENT. Looking at their own article and news they have put, they are also not notable and doesn’t suffice WP:CORPDEPTH. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Goldsztajn (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A. J. Delgado[edit]

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

Notability, although I think it warrants a discussion as there's quite a bit of coverage. Mooonswimmer 18:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, e.g. Hannity Guest: ‘Ray Rice Is The Bigger Victim Of Domestic Violence Here’ (TPM, Sept. 2014, e.g. "Delgado has made incendiary comments about violence against women in the past."), Trump campaign brings on A.J. Delgado as a senior adviser (Yahoo News, Sept 2016), Trump adviser A.J. Delgado defends ‘nasty woman’ insult: ‘He was speaking for a great deal of America’ (Yahoo News, Oct. 2016), From Trump Aide to Single Mom (The Atlantic, Aug. 2017), Ex-Trump staffers confirm they have a son but offer different accounts (WaPo, Aug. 2017), Ex-Trump staffer Jason Miller out at CNN after abortion allegation (Philly Inquirer, Sept. 2018), Lawsuit says Trump 2016 campaign staffer was punished after supervisor got her pregnant (CBS News, Dec, 2019), Ex-Trump staffer suing over pregnancy discrimination (Politico, Dec. 2019). The article can be revised and expanded with information from these sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There is a ton of coverage about her as nom acknowledges and I haven't seen any reason yet why it should be discounted. Atchom (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Atchom. What is the deletion rationale? pburka (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I thought that most of the coverage seemed to cover her suing the Trump campaign for pregnancy/sex discrimination, and the fact that the father was the notable Jason Miller. Does that controversy establish her notability? Does every former senior Trump staffer merit a Wikipedia page? Or is she notable as a columnist/political commentator? Mooonswimmer 14:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For this subject, there is sustained coverage over time that I think can help develop a neutral article that begins with her career before she was a Trump campaign advisor, includes highlights from her work there, has biographical information from the in-depth coverage by The Atlantic and The Washington Post, and continues into the lawsuit. She appears to be notable as a former Trump campaign official due to the depth and volume of coverage over time in independent and reliable sources. She also appears in a nontrivial mention in the 2021 book Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost, nontrivial mentions in the 2019 book Inside Trump's White House: The Real Story of His Presidency and a nontrival mention in the 2017 book Let Trump Be Trump: The Inside Story of His Rise to the Presidency, and the WP:BASIC guideline includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are also several nontrivial mentions in the 2018 book The Adman's Dilemma: From Barnum to Trump, and a nontrivial mention in the 2018 book Media Madness: Donald Trump, the Press, and the War Over the Truth and the 2019 book Siege: Trump Under Fire. Beccaynr (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC) - comment updated with additional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I revised and expanded the article with sources identified in this discussion, and I hope the expansion helps address concerns raised - she appears to have been covered independently for her work as a political commentator and writer, and then as a senior campaign advisor, and then extensively for events afterwards. Beccaynr (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great work so far. Notability is more apparent now and the article is much better worded. Mooonswimmer 13:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep as coverage is enough to pass WP:GNG. 27.33.164.186 (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Reliable sources are available. Mommmyy (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, there's nontrivial WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luca Bovalino[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:BIO and largely appears like the CV of an otherwise non-notable person. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, non-notable businessman, article sourced by press releases (and mainly copied from one of them). There doesn't seem to be any secondary coverage of him online. Storchy (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: can't seem to find any notability-fulfilling coverage. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ReaderofthePack: CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big Trip[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:NM. Might be WP:UPANDCOMING, but for now, this seems to fall under the notability guidelines. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Run 8[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSOFT. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Sources in the article are either primary or trivial (a list of mods for a game is not an WP:RS). I couldn't find any sources that meet WP:GNG after searching. FozzieHey (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 subject is not mentioned in the proposed target article and there was a rough consensus that merging was not justified by the current content. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

City University Construction Fund[edit]

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

Here v. PROD because the non ATD needs more explanation. I was originally going to redirect this to CUNY or Dormitory_Authority_of_the_State_of_New_York but it's not mentioned except for a See Also in the latter, so it's not helpful to the reader and there's nothing of note worth merging to address that issue. There are many hits, but most of it is just confirmation that the fund exists, which is not in question. Star Mississippi 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to City University of New York. This article is only three sentences long and contains no significant information. The article even creates doubt as to whether this entity still exists, when in fact it does; see https://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/fpcm/cucf/ for its web page. The fund is not a topic of interest separate from the university it serves, so redirecting to the university seems like an appropriate outcome. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - a leftover from the time we didn't care. Someone somewhere decided every department and law in the state of New York needed an article. This is one. 174.212.227.174 (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to City University of New York as it has a lot of articles link to it (but really could do with a mention added to that article), or just Delete - not seeing any stand-alone notability. KylieTastic (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keirda Bahruth[edit]

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

Created two films that appear to be notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Every source in the article is spammy or primary or has nothing to do with the subject. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, as the deletion rationale is misguided. The essay the nominator cites does not apply to people like filmmakers: "That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)..." If she created a significant or well-known body of work, then she's notable for her oeuvre. pburka (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and edit for promotional tone, per WP:FILMMAKER#3 and her collective body of work and the reviews and articles about the work, e.g. Bob and the Monster: Film Review (Hollywood Reporter, Mar. 2011), 'Bob And The Monster': The Curious Question Of What You Leave Out (NPR, Jun. 2011), Bob Forrest’s unlikely career arc (LA Times, Aug. 2011), Risen from the gutter, he whispers hope to Hollywood's junkies (CNN, Dec. 2011), Bob and the Monster (Variety, Nov. 2011); Embracing Life Under Scrutiny, Before the Dawn of Nonstop Tweets (New York Times, Aug. 2009), We Live In Public (Variety, 2009), But every day we do, we die a little in private (Robert Ebert, Oct. 2009), Ondi Timoner, “We Live in Public”: Authenticity, Emotionality, and Technology (IndieWire, 2009) (also "won the Sundance Grand Jury Prize in the U.S. documentary category"). Beccaynr (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sole !vote against deleting provides nothing to back up their assertion Star Mississippi 01:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohamed Reda (Footballer, born in 1987)[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) 14:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. If this article is kept, it should be moved to just Mohamed Reda (footballer) since he is the only footballer in Wikipedia with the name Mohamed Reda (i.e. not followed by any other surname). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep passes GNG and BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No such coverage is in the article and I was unable to find any during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

iOS 16[edit]

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

iOS 16 is not announce yet. Per, WP:TOOSOON. Also, Wikipedia is not crystal ball. Hajoon0102 💬 02:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Hajoon0102 💬 02:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Has not even been announced yet, according to the article. Unsurprisingly, the sole source for this claim failed verification. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As always, locked redirect to IOS until the likely WDC announcement and per past precedent. Like clockwork we go through this every single year and there's always the possibility of a new naming pattern. Nate • (chatter) 07:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to IOS, per Mrschimpf, crystal ball until actually announced.--Mvqr (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No-brainer. WP:CRYSTAL --98.179.127.59 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Speculation about an unannounced future software version; doesn't merit an article per WP:CRYSTAL. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Could also redirect like iPadOS 16 but is there much point if it's not mentioned at iOS? FozzieHey (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IPadOS. Sandstein 16:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

iPadOS 16[edit]

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

IPadOS 16 is not announce yet. This is crystal ball article like iOS 16. Hajoon0102 💬 02:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Hajoon0102 💬 02:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Has not even been announced yet, according to the article. Unsurprisingly, the sole source for this claim failed verification. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Locked redirect to iPadOS until likely WDC announcement per past precedent. Could be under another name and this isn't the place for rumors until then. Nate • (chatter) 07:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mrschimpf: But, iPadOS 16 is version of iPadOS. --Hajoon0102 💬 07:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Was composing another vote! on iOS 16 at the same time and copied my opening...I've corrected the above. Thanks for pointing it out. Nate • (chatter) 07:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to iPadOS, per Mrschimpf, crystal ball until actually announced.--Mvqr (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mike Hankey[edit]

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

Article about a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion driteria for diplomats. As usual, diplomats are not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- to be includable in Wikipedia, a diplomat has to actually pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. But this is referenced to his primary source staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-assisting source at all, and one glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him in any non-trivial sense, which isn't enough coverage to vault him over the bar all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be a lot more substantive and a lot better-sourced than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as a completely run-of-the-mill diplomat. KidAd • SPEAK 18:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete ambassarods are not default notable. Those of lower rank are almost never notable for their positions at all, and there is nothing else about this individual to even suggest notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hosam Mohamed[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) 12:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Couldn't find anything significant on him, including in Egyptian sources. Soccerway says he transfered to Ceramica Cleopatra FC in September last year but he is not listed amongst the players on their website[6]. Alvaldi (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G5; article creator is a block evading sock and article has had no substantial contributions from other editors Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Priest[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) 11:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the excellent nature of Papers Past, there's a reasonable chance that sources can be found for New Zealanders. I'll check later and see what I can find - per Alfred Hollings which was recently sent to AfD. In the interim, there is an obvious ATD here so I can't see anything worse than the ~~redirect~~ that Lugnuts suggests. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further to this, try a search on Alec Priest on Papers Past, focussing on post 1909. Seems he was a doctor, captained the Otago schools team and was probably at Varsity - same as Hollings - which has some nice sourcing associated with it. And that's a first skim through. I wonder if this was included in the BEFORE? If you're dealing with New Zealanders from pre-WW2 Papers Past really needs to be part of the checking Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, there's plenty: this for example. More than that as well - it'll take a while as it involves a tricky search (Priest isn't as exclusive as Holling), but we'll get there with this one. It'll end up as a keep I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formally changing my opinion to strong keep. He's close to notable for his medical work, let alone cricket and there is so much more that I've not had a chance to look through - literally thousands of newspaper hits. I'm absolutely certain that there will be obituaries that are not online but would clearly be available in paper archives - I don't think this; I'm certain of it. Papers Past online is less helpful after the 50s and he kept working until the 70s - a local researcher would certainly be able to turn up more.

New Zealanders, it seems, are either utterly anonymous or, more often than not, do marvellous things and generate a tonne of press coverage. They really need looking up properly, especially chaps from this sort of era. But it takes time - I first edited the article today at UTC 15:24. My last edit was at 22:14. I didn't do much else today. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per findings by BST (great work) after this nominator has again failed to perform BEFORE. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recommend AfD TBAN for User:Ficaia. Repeated breaches of WP:BEFORE. Closer please take action. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Great Shaker I believe WP:ANI would be a better venue for that sort of suggestion rather than an AfD discussion page. I see no reason to presume that the statement from the nominator A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. is false in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highly inappropriate behaviour by NGS here. WP:BEFORE doesn't require me to dig through archives. And regardless, the one source cited thus far is not enough to meet GNG. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure it does. When I nominate articles for deletion, I always check Newspapers.com. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes sources are much more clear and obvious to some users as they are for others. The WP:CRIC project is often, as has been demonstrated on many occasions, very capable of finding sources. Sources aren't obvious for everyone and it's worth bringing these queries to attention via WT:CRIC before sending to AfD. Bobo . 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~. The source provided by Blue Square Thing is three brief sentence of coverage in an article covering a number of cricketers, and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. In addition, WP:GNG requires multiple sources. A redirect is not suitable, as there was also a William Priest who worked with Charles Bell. BilledMammal (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There's really quite a lot more. It'll involve substantial work (again) so I'll need some time, but I think we'll have more than enough when everything comes together. These take time, which is something I'm struggling with just now. But I think I'm unlikely to say there's plenty if there's not, aren't I? From my past history with this sort of chap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Blue Square Thing: I believe you, but we have different definitions of WP:SIGCOV that could lead us to different conclusions. However, in this case those definitions don't make a difference, as it is clear that they are notable - excellent work. Keep. BilledMammal (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  @Blue Square Thing After going through the sources, they seem to be at best trivial mentions. I couldn't identify anything of significance but maybe I'm overlooking something. What would you say were the two or three best significant sources of them? Alvaldi (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand exactly what you mean in terms of the sources. A number of them are very brief mentions - some of them just a name or a sentence, although there are others where we're dealing with a paragraph or so of stuff directly addressing Priest. A number of the sources used to provide quotations in the cricket section tend to fall into this category, for example, this from 1940, this from 1931, or this from 1929. To an extent the weight of sourcing comes when these are brought together. He's being referred to as "well known", for example, by a newspaper based over 350 km away from where he's playing in 1931, before he's played rep cricket for Otago. It's a passing mention, but to call him that from that distance is significant. I need to emphasise that I've not been able to check all of the >1000 hits I got on Papers Past - with a reasonably fine tuned search. There may be more detailed articles in there that I missed.

The sources I've used to detail his medical career are probably the most obviously in depth as it happens - this from 1952 and this from 1950 directly address him in dedicated articles. And I happened across two references to him in a history of TB in NZ within the last hour, one indicating that he has an obituary published in the NZJM. I've requested it.

As I say, I understand that no one's written a book or a chapter on the chap - well, not one that we've found anyway. But, tbh with you, I reckon we could delete about 75% of the project if we aimed for that level of sourcing. That might, of course, be appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. If significant sources are found, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Per BST. It should be noted to the nominator that while you're not expected to trawl through archives (perhaps it would be more thorough to do so), you should consult the parent project where you think there might be more sources for an article. StickyWicket (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Comment The article is now well-sourced, so I'll save everyone's time and close as keep. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Wow! This article has been improved substantially since the nomination. I am not sure as to whether a WP:BEFORE was actually done. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per substantial expansion work by BST. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As the article now includes analysis of the subject's playstyle and local legacy 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Article has been significantly improved since the AfD was started and is significant coverage has been shown. Should be noted that AfD is not clean up, and that perhaps a notability tag should have been added to the article and a message dropped at the cricket WikiProject to try and find sources to improve the article instead. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Great work by BST has shown that this person meets WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per nom (don't get to say that often!). Great job Blue Square Thing! Jacona (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: expansion demonstrates notability and significant coverage. Paora (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stavros Christoforou[edit]

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

Played 2 games in an WP:FPL then disappeared. Whilst technically passing the deprecated WP:NFOOTBALL guideline, he doesn't meet WP:GNG. The Cypriot league is also absent from WP:NFOOTBALLNEW and related discussions on the relevant talk page, indicating that there isn't much community belief that playing a game in the Cypriot league justifies a stand-alone article.

Searches in English yielded only database profile pages. A Google News search in Greek yielded only a squad listing in Sigma Live while this Greek language search only yielded irrelevant articles about namesakes and trivial passing mentions in U19 reports such as Omonoia News. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Note that WP:NFOOTBALLNEW will not hand out automatic notability to athletes, they still have to show significant coverage if taken to AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no discussion, but the article is entirely unsourced, which means WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 16:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St. Anthony's English School, Ambajogai[edit]

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

Couldn't find sources for this WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. Previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 09:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something Like Silas[edit]

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

Though I do remember this band, I don't believe it meets our notability guidelines. Natg 19 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Natg 19 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm also unsure if their "sequel" band, Future of Forestry is notable either, but that can be a different discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep This incarnation barely made a dent in the Christian music scene. Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 978-1565636798. was released as the band was starting and makes no mention of them. However, https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/DivineInvitation.asp and https://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/products/Something_Like_Silas/Divine_Invitation/11647/ for this band and more for Future of Forestry (https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/FutureOfForestry.asp). Could support a redirect to FoF article and add a section about this band there. Many more sources for that band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep With the sources above from WG and this Allmusic review, there's enough to hang an article on; CCM magazine may have a review, as well. Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sam Granville[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Fails WP:FOOTY, WP:GNG OGLV (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. OGLV (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There are none in the article itself and I was unable to find any during a search outside of database listings and primary sources. This is a modern day athlete who started his senior team career in 2020 in England so if there where sources they should be readily available online. Alvaldi (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no notability found. The best that I can find are passing mentions in local press such as this article, which fails to establish any claim to notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duane Johnson (artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Duane Johnson (artist) (2nd nomination)

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

Non notable artist as none of the sources cover him in depth. The sources currently include his own website, some dead links and mostly local coverage. The article creator also appears to have a connection to subject. Sahaib (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - This is an autobiography. I was not able to verify ANY of the collections. The one citation for the collections is something he wrote about himself. There is a possibility the claims made in the article are puffed-up. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete We do not have the sourcing to verrify what the article says.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything that constitutes reliable coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Punjab Gold[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources. Already been to PROD once. No confirmation that this film ever released and why it is a notable unreleased film (this film is not in Preity Zinta's filmography page). Could anyone translate what the one source in the article says? DareshMohan (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment- see here 2009 section- [[7]], I suspect a movie with the same name was planned/rumoured but didn't got finalised. RS6784 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete- My stand is the movie may have been planned but didn't got finalised. Overall there is lack of conclusive information on it, not fulfilling WP:N. RS6784 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swimming clubs in London[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Also fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep but ONLY ON THE PROVISO THAT CLUBS WHICH MEET WP:NOTABILITY are listed. It should be a dynamic list, not a directory list. --Gowzena1978khhwe (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC) indef blocked by Kusma. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Those who want to retain it should instead create a Swimming clubs in the United Kingdom. NavjotSR (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. No objection to Category:Swimming clubs in London, if and when there will be sufficient notable clubs with articles. gidonb (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only three clubs have an article, two of which are currently PRODed, and one has a notability tag. We don't need an article listing loads of non-notable places, as we're not a directory. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of bloodhound packs of the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Also fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per nom, obvious WP:NOTDIR and definitely does not pass WP:LISTN. Also to note there are plenty of other similar articles on other dog breeds. See: List of foxhound packs of the United Kingdom, List of beagle, harrier and basset packs of the United Kingdom, List of minkhound packs of the United Kingdom, List of draghound packs of the United Kingdom, List of hound packs of Ireland. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have also nominated the following similar pages:

AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all these rather questionable and non-notable articles, for the reasons given above. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all obscure non-notable WP:NOTDIR category-pretending-to-be-a-list Dronebogus (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all as not notable. Llwyld (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all I don't see a good point in having these. CharlesWain (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Svitlana Pyrkalo[edit]

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

I think the subject's notability is questionable. I could only find sources that are directly connected to her (like an organization where she is in the board of trustees, or articles she contributed to at the BBC. Nothing independent, or in-depth. I searched in Ukrainian too (I speak Russian, so I can read a little Ukrainian). I get mostly stuff that was copied from her wiki article. The links in the article itself are all directly connected to her, except that book review, but the link is dead and I cannot find this article in the Canadian Slavonic Papers on jSTOR. Xia ^{talk to me} 08:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable as a Ukrainian writer with five authored works including her dictionary of Ukrainian slang which was reviewed in two scholarly journals. I easily found the review in the Canadian Slavonic Papers on JSTOR and added it to the article. May also be notable as a Ukrainian journalist. Her fiction has received scholarly attention and has been included in a number of anthologies of Ukrainian writing. Selected as one of the Ukrainian "young intellectuals" to contribute an essay to New Europe in 2018. Detailed biographical profile at the Czech literary journal iLiteratura.cz which specialises in minority languages. She is not the only Ukrainian woman writing in her native language to have her notability questioned recently. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Lists of people. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 11:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Ukraine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment She is discussed in context in "Emerging Ukrainian Women Prose Writers: Twenty Years After Independence" (World Literature Today, 2011), and mentioned in Politico EU newsletters in 2018 and 2019. Beccaynr (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot access the first one, the second and third are mentions only, not in-depth about her. Xia ^{talk to me} 12:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In World Literature Today, discussion includes her mentor (further discussed in the WP article): "That sometimes painfully candid and personally focused aspect of Zabuzhko’s writing has been taken up by a number of other younger women writers including Svitlana Pyrkalo, [...] Like Zabuzhko in her pathbreaking novel, all these younger writers (ages 29–37) focus on urban life, use scatological and substandard language, tend toward the confessional, and, in a quite frank manner, describe their sexual experiences—largely ironically—as well as their inner emotional lives, usually in turmoil" and also notes with introductory context about journalism training in Ukraine, "Pyrkalo and Sniadanko work as print and media journalists". The article is focused overall on "the tradition of Ukrainian women’s prose fiction". Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable author with enough reliable sources proving said notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
where are those sources? Xia ^{talk to me} 12:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep ,,, has published at least nine books, one that was adapted into film. She has plenty of reliable sources that direct to her. Agree with SouthernNights...Whispyhistory (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Additions to the article and sources identified in this discussion help support WP:BASIC notability as an author. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is in the process of improvement, new sources have been added - we need more participation to access the notability now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to redirect is up to editors. Sandstein 16:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katirhat High School[edit]

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

The article is currently unsourced, and I was only able to find two news articles, one about a rape incident, and another about two journalists being detained at the school, both of which I think do not count towards notability. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The article has no information besides the infobox. Neither of the above incidents are particularly notable, and only including those would paint a bad picture of the school. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Dhalai Union, the enclosing geographic area, where the school is listed, as an alternative to deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Possibly... can become an another WP:ATTACK page like Khaitan Public School, Ghaziabad. - Hatchens (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Disagree with the unnecessary relisting of the AfD. Lorstaking 10:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forms.app (service)[edit]

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

It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Delete sources are basically listings and directories that is not enough Rlink2 (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose/Keep The sources are enough to show notability and do not consist of just listing but some third party reviews, as well. Currently, I am looking for ways to improve this article, any help appreciated. I can use help in some other pages (see the pages I want to create in my talk page). TheWirelessMonkey (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete appears to fail to meet our notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom, the reviews still do not amount to WP:SIGCOV. This is entirely non-notable at the present.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaveri Kaul[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Cannot see any proper reviews for any of her films either. Edwardx (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The article includes a 1991 review of her film One Hand Don't Clap when she was known as Kavery Dutta: Review/Film; Calypso, Past and Present, As Two Veterans See It (New York Times), a 2006 review of Long Way From Home from Film Threat, and a 2012 review in the journal Anthropology Now for her film Back Walking Forward, and what appears to be a review from Newsday. My online search finds a 2021 review of The Bengali by BroadwayWorld, a mention of Long Way From Home in context by the New York Times in 2015, as well as a 2013 article in FirstPost and a 2013 article in CNN about her and one of her films. A search for "Kavery Dutta" on GScholar brings up a variety of results, including a discussion of her film One Hand Don't Clap in Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning at p. 50, and a dicussion of the impact of her film in Seeking a voice: South Asian women's groups in North America at 400. Via the Wikipedia Library, there is a review of Back Walking Forward from Library Journal in 2012, a 2006 review of Long Way from Home from Video Business (via Gale), two 2013 articles from The Telegraph about the making of one of her films (both via Gale), the 1991 Newsday review titled "Celebrating The Culture Of Calypso" (via ProQuest), 1991 reviews from Variety, The Village Voice, New York Amsterdam News and The Wall Street Journal for One Hand Don't Clap (via ProQuest), and a 2016 article about her published by IANS: "Kavery Kaul on mission to explore 'shifting sands of culture'" (via ProQuest, e.g. "A graduate of Harvard University, Kaul has been awarded a Fulbright Fellowship, a New York Foundation for the Arts Artist's Fellowship, multiple New York State Council on the Arts grants and two National Endowment for the Arts awards."). She appears to have WP:CREATIVE notability as the creator of a collective body of work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Based on the very careful explanation of Beccaynr which demonstrates WP:CREATIVE notability, specifically criterion three whereby there is a collective body of work and that work is the subject of multiple independent reviews. CT55555 (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Notable as per Beccaynr. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bhushita Ahuja[edit]

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

non-notable author. Lacks significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. fails WP:BASIC DMySon (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. DMySon (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per nom. – robertsky (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 06:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: non notable.IndaneLove (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete- there are information available on the Google but the article may not be fulfilling WP:N. RS6784 (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment there is an article at Bhuhashita Ahuja that appears to be the same subject. Please consider that in your discussion. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject for this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Cera Palin[edit]

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

Might be a bit of a stretch which is why I brought this here first. Article is already tagged as a stub but I'm not entirely sure there's much to expand with. The four sources that were present (one that I've removed because it was definitely no good, another which appears not to be a publication) were all added in 2020, and there are only two more I can find that might be worth adding. The lack of continuing coverage doesn't give me much hope for this article expanding any further or even passing the notability test, but I'm not 100% on whether being a stub excuses any of this or whatever so here's for a second opinion. If anything, perhaps this should get draftified so we can expand with whatever we've got and see how it looks after that. QuietHere (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Pottery Museum[edit]

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

WP:N Happyecheveria (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Happyecheveria (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete I read Spanish, and there isn't much there either. Lots of confused result with black pottery in Mexico and pre Colombian Latin America. Haven't yet been able to find evidence that this is a notable museum. Star Mississippi 12:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC). ETA and I'd normally argue for a redirect to Ethnographic Museums Network of Asturias but I don't think they meet notability standards unfortunately. Star Mississippi 13:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alfercam Museum[edit]

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

WP:N Happyecheveria (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Happyecheveria (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not appear to have garnered attention while extant and I don't think a redirect to Ethnographic Museums Network of Asturias would work as I'm not sure that should exist. Star Mississippi 13:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: The lavozdeaviles.es item noting its closure is insufficient to demonstrate that this private initiative attained WP:GNG / WP:NORG notability while it existed, and searches are not finding better. Although its listing at Avilés#Museums_and_arts_centres might provide an WP:ATD redirect target, I think that section needs renovated to distinguish existing facilities like the Museum and Neimeyer Centre from the obsolete items such as this. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gambo Ibrahim Gujungu[edit]

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

WP:BLP (possible autobio or family COI, as the creator's name was "Mgujungu") of an activist and political figure, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for political figures. The notability claims here are that he's president of an organization, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrated pass of WP:GNG on the sourcing, and that he was a candidate in an election that he didn't win, which does not pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete — Per Bearcat, this is an autobiography article which fails to meet NPOL or any notability criterion satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete — per nom. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yasmin Finney[edit]

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

per WP:NACTOR. Bradford (Talk) 02:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bradford (Talk) 02:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - At current, Ms. Finney would arguably not meet the standard of WP:NACTOR since the cancellation of her lead role in What If?. However, 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 (Which Yasmin Finney does not appear to be). I would question the use of WP:NACTOR to suggest deletion here. Wilburg22 - The insufferable potato! (Click here for my talk page!) 02:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I agree with the rationale presented by Bradford. --- FULBERT (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you mean Willburg22? I think Bradford is arguing against Keep Thariqziyad (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thariqziyad Thanks for the ping on my error. Indeed, I am suggesting to keep this article based on the points raised by V60club. Thank you again for pinging for clarification on this. FULBERT (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strongly keep I am concerned about the wave of similar deletion proposals. She is widely referenced both as an actress and as a TikTok influencer, as can be demonstrated by a simple search on Google --Kanskje ja (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is a person who is making his acting debut notable? All the references provided only talk about her debut in Heartstopper. Bradford (Talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems as if only four of the current eight cites are related to the series.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – meets WP:NBASIC and unlikely that she won't meet WP:NACTOR in very short order. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – appears to satisfy WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG, between the GLAAD listing and one significant (top billed) role.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ducky Tie[edit]

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

Redirect declined because of one review, but I don't think that's enough to meet WP:NEPISODE. "An episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired.... A standalone episode article should be expected to be able to meet WP:GNG on its own; most especially, the episode itself, apart from its series, should have more than a passing mention in reliable source coverage." The editor who undid the redirect failed to prove how one review is enough to pass WP:GNG, and is claiming that I am "rushing around replacing things with redirects". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's not clear what you are asking for User:TenPoundHammer. You've nominated for deletion, but you seem to be arguing for redirect. Can you clarify? Also, you tried to redirect this to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes. Wouldn't a much better redirect be to How_I_Met_Your_Mother_(season_7)#ep139? Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm looking for deletion or redirection to the season. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Why redirect to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes instead of How_I_Met_Your_Mother_(season_7)#ep139? Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I keep forgetting that indvidiual-season articles are a thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep 10.556 million people watched it so of course it got reviews in places. Vulture magazine Why ‘How I Met Your Mother’s’ ‘Ducky Tie’ Was the Best Sitcom Episode of the Season has significant coverage. Clicking the Google news search shows it as the second result, right behind the A. V. Club review already mentioned in the article [8]. And rushing around replacing so many articles with redirects instead of doing any basic WP:BEFORE is irritating. Other things you have done I have reverted since they had two or more reviews in them, you just not noticing, rushing through so quickly such as [9]. You just go through so many articles each day, sending them to AFD, prodding them, or replacing them with a redirect, no one has time to sort through them all. Dream Focus 04:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/09/27/how-i-met-your-mother-the-ducky-tie-review https://www.pastemagazine.com/tv/how-i-met-your-mother-review-the-ducky-tie-episode/ are easy to find with a Google search for "ducky tie" and the word "review". Dream Focus 04:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, WP:NEPISODE says that reviews alone aren't sufficient; there has to be coverage of the episode's casting, writing, or other elements of it being made too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an essay, so it doesn't matter what it said. We go by the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, which have clearly been met. Dream Focus 17:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not make that argument, just pointed out with that many viewers of course it got reviewed. Dream Focus 18:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – In addition to the sources listed above, there's a review by Alan Sepinwall that hasn't been mentioned. Five sources (Vulture, IGN, The A.V. Club, Paste, and this new review) is clearly sufficient to establish notability. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. WP:NEPISODE is an opinion essay. Sources include AV Club, Vulture, IGN, Paste, Uproxx. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shoshurbari Zindabad 2[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources for reviews for WP:NFILM by WP:NFO, if the film is released as stated in the infobox. Going by the article, [presumably only] Bengali-language sources exist. Perhaps locals could find more sources? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Comment this film was actually released, it might be worth checking for non-English sources. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nobody seems eager to delete it. More info/input is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syrongly Keep - features two leading actors and the film is a much anticipated film. Abbasulu (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is post-release media coverage.[10][11][12] That sets it apart from the average Bangladeshi film. There isn't much of a culture of film criticism in the country, and most films, after much promotional hype, are never mentioned again after their release is announced. Although there are no reviews, there is media coverage of the fact that it ran for 4+ weeks, which is a good performance. The coverage isn't deep, but there's just enough that we could write something about the audience reception, taking the article slightly beyond a summary-only description of the film. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declan Sheehan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear notability as per WP:BIO, none of the sources go beyond the trivial. The overall notability of this person is unclear, likely not notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment To clarify, the previous AfD discussion was about British rugby league player. Declan Sheehan. So this discussion should be taken independent of that. - Bogger (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. A WP:BEFORE exercise has returned a small number of examples coverage (of which the subject is the primary topic). While I have added these to the article, I do not see that there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:ANYBIO. (The coverage is the type of interviews and "pen pics" common for business people at a certain level in some verticals, and not sufficiently numerous or of sufficient depth to meet the related criteria.) Other than those (2 or 3?) pieces of coverage, the only substantial biographical source is the lovely/heartfelt obituary. And obituaries of this type aren't (on their own) normally considered contributory to notability (an obituary isn't a biography). While WP:ATD expects us to consider keeping/merging/redirecting where appropriate, I cannot conceive of where the content might be moved and/or the title redirect. Hence mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Staff obituaries certainly count toward notability. This seems to fall into a grey zone - it's not one of those paid up notices, but it's not a dispassionate staff piece either. Atchom (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Notability Spleodrach (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 05:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ana C. Reyes[edit]

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

As a nominee, her WP:BIO notability is unclear. She is clearly going to be notable once she is confirmed. However, at the present, pending confirmation, she is not notable as a lawyer and not a legal academic of note. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Snickers2686 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning move to draft. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent". BD2412 T 06:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The Washington Post has a lengthy article on her from 2020 which details her finding the teacher who taught her English when she arrived in the United States. I have added the citation to the existing article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - the article in the Washington Post is WP:SIGCOV, I also found two news articles discussing her time in California in 1996 working to defeat 1996 California Proposition 209; these have been added to the article along with information about two awards she has received. Hence, she meets WP:GNG even prior to the recent coverage of Biden's nomination of her to the district court. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - The 2020 WaPo article and other sources added by DaffodilOcean, and this 2022 article from The Hill: President Biden’s judicial nominee could become the first Hispanic woman and LGBTQ person to serve on the court sufficiently support notability. There is also: Lawyer Reunites with 'Extraordinary' 1st Grade Teacher Who Helped Her Learn English 40 Years Later (People, Nov. 2020). Beccaynr (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I think she meets WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judith Ann Pachciarz[edit]

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

Not sure this meets WP:ACADEMIC or other relevant notability guidelines. It appears it was created by a SPA. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I found a whole book about her: Verheyden-Hilliard, M. E. (1988). Scientist and Physician, Judith Pachciarz. United States: Equity Institute. There's a biography here: https://cfmedicine.nlm.nih.gov/physicians/biography_244.html 11 pages about her here: https://www.lifescitrc.org/download.cfm?submissionID=3607 CT55555 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The article as nominated already had two highly reliable and in-depth sources and the additional book makes WP:GNG notability even clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the nominator was only looking at NPROF and not GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow keep notability is solidly proven Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, not a SPA - this is just my first Wikipedia entry. Rathernuts (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 05:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daphne Frias[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, no reliable sources substantiate the article's principal assertions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It's easy to find news and writing about the organization she founded, the office she holds, her role in March For Our Lives. She features in many pieces of writing about young activists, I've added some in. I think she clearly meets notability criteria now. CT55555 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, still unconvinced. She is in a few lists, but most of those are WP:RISING kind of lists. In the end, notability is about impact. Is it likely that she will, at some point of her career, be notable? Absolutely. The work she does looks really cool. Is she notable right here, right now, by the standards as they are applied? No.

Thanks for adding the additional refs, but they do not substantiate notability in my view. Out of the seven sources, three are WP:RISING kind of 'up and coming' lists. There's a NYT article, but that is at best collaterally about her. There are two profiles – 'speaker details' tend to be written by the speaker and so do not constitute independent coverage. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read the WP:RISING and I find it a very agreeable essay. I think we interpret it differently. As I see it, it's based on how to apply WP:CRYSTAL guidance, with the key thing here being not to add unverifiable future predictions of notability. That is not what has happened in this article. This article cites published sources, the argument that she is notable does not rely on crystal balls, predictions or claims that she will be notable in the future. She is notable today.

You say that the sources in the article do not substantiate notability, which is difficult to understand. To keep it simple, R. Sarah has written a book chapter about her, Ms. (magazine) has written half a page about her, Mission has written an article about her, Vice has written half a page about her, The New York Times has mentioned her and hosted an event where she's a speaker. This all meets WP:GNG plain and simply, it meets WP:BIO plain and simply. I don't know what more anyone could need. CT55555 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Disability, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, i.e. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - while these sources are not all in-depth, they do not seem trivial due to the context of the coverage: Election Day rally in Union Square hopes to inspire city’s youngest voters (AMNY, Nov. 2018, description of her organizing efforts and quote, in the context of the voter turnout initiative by Future Coalition: "said Daphne Frias, 20-year-old college student and Future Coalition’s lead organizer in New York"), Thousands of students are expected to walk out of classes today to go to the polls (CNBC, Nov. 2018, "Daphne Frias, a 20-year-old SUNY student and organizer of the New York City Walkout to Vote, tells CNBC..."), This Is What It Looks Like When Teens Fight Climate Change (ELLE, Jul. 2019, featured in a picture with a caption, e.g. "...21-year-old activist and newly-appointed elected official in her New York community, led a breakout session..." but not by an independent author), Six degrees of coronavirus? In NYC area, cases get personal (NBC News Mar. 2020, 6 grafs about her), Gen Z was fed up with the status quo. Coronavirus could affirm their beliefs. (WaPo, Apr. 2020, 7 grafs about her), Passion, Power, and Honor: 9 Young Latinx Activists Who Are Changing the World (Pop Sugar, Sept. 2020, 2 grafs), Is 'Latinx' The Future Of Latino Identity? (NPR, Oct. 2020, interviewed as an activist), Young Women Are Leading Climate Protests. Guess Who Runs Global Talks? (NYT, Nov. 2021, brief mention and quote at the end of the article, in the context of her participation in a protest), Whose Voices Are (and Aren’t) Being Heard at COP26? (Yes, Nov. 2021, 2 grafs about her). She is also profiled in this 2021 book: Girl Warriors: How 25 Young Activists Are Saving the Earth (several pages) and interviewed in this 2020 book: Youth to Power: Your Voice and How to Use It. The article can be expanded with the depth of coverage available from the combination of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC) - wikilink for the Future Coalition added to comment. Beccaynr (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) - comment updated to reflect depth of AMNY source. Beccaynr (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) - comment updated to reflect lack of independence in ELLE source. Beccaynr (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I expanded the article to help demonstrate the depth available from a combination of sources, and I also think a close review of the sources raises a few concerns about independence and quality. For example, Mission does not appear to have editorial standards nor to include a date on its article. The three grafs from Ms. are produced by the bylined organization, similar to the caption in ELLE, although in ELLE, the author is the organization that sponsored the covered event. There is some reliance on quotes from her in sources such as Vice in its two grafs of coverage, but from my view, it is still attention in the sense that she has been found "worthy of notice", as well as the additional independent context that supports notability. For most of the New York Times sources, she was part of an NYT-sponsored speaker initiative, and the primary sources do not contribute to notability. However, I think there is overall enough coverage in independent and reliable sources over time that provides sufficient depth to support a stand-alone article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep clearly meets the BASIC coverage, and sufficient depth from the expansion of the article, Sadads (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muwata of imam anas bin malik[edit]

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

It is hard to ascertain who/what this article is about, or whether it exists. The article lacks pertinent references altogether, and is not written in an appropriate language that would disclose why it would be of encyclopaedic interest. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. I think this article is supposed to be about either the book Muwatta Imam Malik, or its author, Malik ibn Anas. Both of those articles are much better written and better sourced than this one. I don't even think this title is worthy of becoming a redirect since the author's name appears to be reversed ("anas bin malik" instead of "Malik ibn Anas"). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per the above response. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: There's almost nothing legible here. Some parts don't even make sense. ("year 179/7/6"?) The citations it has are not actual citations. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - This is a very incompetently written WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Muwatta Imam Malik. Its title confuses Malik ibn Anas with Anas ibn Malik (a common mistake). "year 179/7/6" refers to the year 179 AH (Anno Hegirae), the year of Malik ibn Anas' death (= 795 CE). The first two references are to the author's personal blog. There's also the related Draft:Muwata of imam malik. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Muwatta of Imam Malik. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of mayors of West Jordan, Utah[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced list of non-notable mayors. Tagged for lack of sources for 11 years. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per the nomination. -fuzzy510 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Utah. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, unsourced mayorcruft (which is a thing now, it seems) Dronebogus (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big Dennis Rivera[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this radio personality. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per dl93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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