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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganpati zone[edit]

Ganpati zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was going to move to Draftspace but it isn’t worth it. Both the founder and the organization fail to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BIO & WP:ORG respectively as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliables sources independent of them. Needless to say there is 0 WP:ORGDEPTH. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree it is A7 material. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as bordering on CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Google analytic links aren't sources. Vanity article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources that show the subject is notable.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet GNG, looks to be COI / Promo. Lirazelf (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect all of you. I cleared 6 Google certifications which took many hours of day and night struggle ....i think it was my mistake as its of no value. As very few people clear 1 or 2 but i did 6. I will work more hard and try to come back. Regards Pankaj verma 23 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Nicholas James[edit]

Dr Nicholas James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF or any other notability criterion. He has notable family members, so redirect is an option. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He appears to be a continuing education instructor at Cambridge rather than part of their core programs, in which it would be surprising for them to hire someone less than excellent academically. In any case, that's neither here nor there. I searched for but was unable to find evidence of highly cited works that would pass WP:PROF#C1, or published reviews of his books that could be used to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  His influence on the subject of Archaeology and Anthropology, particularly Aztecs and Mayans is extensive. As well as the number of his publications and is at least of encyclopaedic import. Angloscottish (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but evidence is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is hard to defend this ineptly written BLP, but by searching for "N James antiquity" in GS I dug up a moderate number of cites in a low cited field. His academic position indicates a successful academic career, and he is certainly part of Cambridge's "core program". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. I cleaned up the article a little to get a better look at it. The book Aztec & Maya has gone into three editions, which indicates some real success, but my brief hunts didn't turn up any reviews. A "Lecturer" at Cambridge is a permanent position-- in the US "lecturer" is a euphemism for an adjunct, but in the UK a Lecturer is an assistant professor. (Um.. and an "assistant" professor is nobody's assistant, they're a full-time tenure-track prof.) So he does seem to be established enough that I could believe an article is warranted. But I haven't found the NBOOK passes for NAUTHOR and I don't know the field well enough to know how to evaluate for NPROF. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are all established academics deemed to be notable regardless of RS coverage? To me that approach makes no sense, we do not apply it to any other profession. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

No, certainly not, sorry for the confusion-- I was responding to the discussion earlier in this AfD about whether he was "core" faculty at Cambridge. (Looking at that discussion again I think the debate may actually be about whether "Continuing Education" is a core program, rather than confusion over the title of Lecturer.) Being an established prof at Cambridge is not a notability claim in itself, just a sort of clue that it may be worth looking harder for sources than for someone earlier in their career or at a smaller school. Ditto the multiple editions feel like one of those "keep looking" hints. But in this case it doesn't look like the coverage is turning up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all, however, this one is evidently worthy of note. Partly because the coverage he receives is notable from a smaller field, also given the number of hits he receives in editing books and his own articles he can be seen to be a respected academic in the field and surely does merit an article. Also, I would argue that Academics are in a unique profession that deserves greater note. Furthermore the fact that he is a Lecturer and Professor at Cambridge clearly shows that he is a remarkable academic to have reached such a level in academia at Cambridge, and is worthy of an article to celebrate his authorship and academia. Oxford375 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked this character up on Google Scholar and he did receive a fair few hits and citations and the number of Editions for his Aztec & Maya book does suggest that he gives an impressive impact on the area. He also received a few hits on JSTOR as well, not as many as GS but still a few. It is perhaps unsurprising that he has not received all that many hits in all, as he has quite a narrow field. Therefore this might not be a totally fair comparison to take, and he should receive his article due to having a considerable number for such a small field. I would argue that he does fill the criteria for being a warranted article holder, certainly for being a notable academic, if not necessarily for being an author, although, I would say that as previously stated, for a narrow field, his impact is respectable and worthy of this article. Furthermore, given the number of books on the subject which he has been called in for, and credited for editing, it is clear that he is a notable person in the field. Furthermore, I completely endorse User:LEvalyn's points in his being a full Lecturer and Professor at Cambridge University and would say that his position there in combination with his already notable career, certainly justifies his article. Also as stated by User:buidhe, his family is clearly notable, which gives another aspect to his already thoroughly warranted article. Oxford375 (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's have links and numbers for GS and JStor. Wikipedia needs verifiable evidence to assess notability. The rest of your arguments are spurious. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This is not something that appears on any other page, the fact of their existence is enough. Oxford375 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that I am NOT arguing he is notable on the basis of being a Lecturer at Cambridge -- I was just trying to correct a misunderstanding I thought had emerged about his status there. Having a notable family also does not make him notable. The only viable notability rationale currently in the running appears to be the WP:NPROF#1 claim that he is the author of a highly cited work, which needs more justification. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept and agree that family is not a a basis of notability, I was merely acknowledging the original post with that statement Oxford375 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough evidence to show a pass of WP:Prof. I also have doubts about the notability of Philip Seaforth James. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - looking at the discussion above, there's a lot to look at but not much to see, in a way. Doesn't quite pass the bar. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Neither of the books listed look like top flight academic books to me, rather popular archaeology. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't seem to be consensus over whether James passes WP:NPROF as those who have done a deep dive into his contributions argue that he is notable in his field. Hopefully consensus can emerge in the next few days on whether this is enough to establish notability in academia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Cambridge academic titles are confusing enough to insiders, never mind those who aren't in the system, and a lot of the speculation above isn't super helpful or relevant. I will note that he is neither a fellow of Magdalene not on the faculty roll - he probably teaches college supervisions and is joint DoS, but in terms of academic rank he's nowhere near a professor. As to his research, with the caveat this isn't my field, his list of publications doesn't seem particularly notable, he has no notable memberships to learned societies, no book which would be on the syllabus, etc. Atchom (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is listed on Institute of Continuing Research profile page as a consultant lecturer. Couldn't find anything of worth. Not a professor or an associate professor. No book reviews that might have bailed him out. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Moni Das[edit]

Rajib Moni Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Other than some passing mentions (most of the sources are in Bengali but i can read as i'm native speaker) & interview, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Second Vatican Council#The "Spirit of Vatican II". It's already covered there. Whether to remove it from there also or whether to merge content from the history is up to editors, but there's clear consensus here against keeping. Sandstein 11:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Vatican II[edit]

Spirit of Vatican II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This just seems to be a whole lot of WP:SYNTH, there appear to be no sources that justify the "spirit of Vatican II" as a separately notable topic from Vatican II itself Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this appears to synthesize some vague idea from numerous sources that don't explicitly describe it this way. Too much WP:OR here, in my opinion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can’t see that there’s a topic here and I don’t think this even rises to the level of WP:SYNTH. It’s just a recitation of various uses of a phrase without any real indication that the various users had any consistent intention. Mccapra (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Second_Vatican_Council#Legacy, which covers the same ground. I suspect that a mere redirect would be inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sefton Short Film Festival[edit]

Sefton Short Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not cite any sources, and after looking around the web for reliable, independent sources I could find none. I believe that if this film festival was at one point notable, there would have been at least one article about it in the local press. But I cannot find anything. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All I can find is Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nyanzi Julius[edit]

Nyanzi Julius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Claim to notability is the founder and CEO of a company, but the domain name is now up for sale. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is based on his own PR and I don’t see any independent in depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the cited sources contribute to notability: [1] is a passing mention, [2] and [3] are interviews/non-independent sources, and [4] and [5] seem to have been written by Nyanzi himself. My search was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so he fails WP:BASIC/the WP:GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing outside of PR and paid press. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Carpenter (woodworker)[edit]

Ike Carpenter (woodworker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am sympathetic to the work necessary to become a master woodworker, but the coverage (like the award won) is entirely local. Presumably there is a new "South Carolina Folk Heritage Award" won every year, and neither that nor a showcase of family works at a local university are sufficient to confer notability as an artist. BD2412 T 19:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Carolina. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hyper-local coverage, nothing to meet our notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hyper local coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal FX[edit]

Vocal FX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. ––FormalDude talk 22:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Brian O'Conner 22:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Besho[edit]

DJ Besho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable. Coriannakox (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Afghanistan, and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: easily meets WP:NBIO with sources like The Atlantic, Financial Times, and BBC South Asia. ––FormalDude talk 21:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sufficient citations in article to demonstrate notability of subject. Brian O'Conner 22:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Party[edit]

Humane Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Extremely small political party with no WP:SIGCOV in major outlets beyond noting the party's existence. The party has no electoral success. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Politics, and Environment. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. I agree with the nominator here, too small, articles are mostly not independent it appears, and no real significant coverage. I checked newspapers.com and nothing I could find related to this party. If that changes, I could be persuaded to change, but not at the moment. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 16:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webcare[edit]

Webcare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I checked online and it appears that Webcare is used as the name of a couple of commercial products unrelated to the point of this article. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Social media marketing#Strategies or #Engagement? Providing customer support via social media would fall under marketing. SWinxy (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would fall under customer service or customer support. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose customer support, yeah. SWinxy (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Nobody calls it "webcare". It should be deleted. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Delete. SWinxy (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juani Feliz[edit]

Juani Feliz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD. Insufficient significant coverage for this WP:NACTOR-failing actress. Might be too soon to write about an actress that hasn't been nominated for or won an award for her work. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this chance for discussion and don't believe this article merits deletion.

First, the article speaks for itself on this actor's accomplishments and titles. Harlem is a major TV show and so is DMZ. It's also an accurate submission.

Furthermore, the standards set out in Notability are not objectively enforced. Take for instance an article like this: Tristen Walker. He's done absolutely nothing :D and yet I see no one deleting his article. I'm not saying he should be deleted, but I don't see why filling out Wikipedia's coverage about POC, queer actresses should be more scrutinized than the benchmark articles on this awesome site. BubbleBub (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — BubbleBub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is where I have to bring up WP:NOTINHERITED; just because Feliz appeared in these works does not automatically make her notable. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the stipulation of NACTOR is: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. That is true for these shows/roles. BubbleBub (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like BubbleBub, I also don't believe this article merits deletion. You referred to this actress as a "failing actress." The information provided in the article seems accurate and properly supported by legitimate resources. I wouldn't categorize this actress as "failing" -- on the contrary, this young actress' accomplishments are quite impressive and more than sufficient to be considered "notable." Re: WP:NACTOR the actress/article in question has in fact had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."

Makes me wonder if there is discriminatory reasons behind your request for this article to be deleted. I think people will benefit from learning about this young lady who seems to be on the verge of becoming "notable" according to your standards. Most importantly, I would refrain from using such language on this platform -- a platform that stands strongly against bullying. AvidLearner23 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — AvidLearner23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I did not say "failing actress", I said "notability-failing actress". Additionally, none of the sources you all have provided have Feliz as the focus, a requirement of WP:SIGCOV. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - seems to be on the verge of passing WP:NACTOR criteria 1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production." Harlem and DMZ are both notable, but whether her roles in them are significant, I am not sure. They are certainly recurring roles, but I cannot find sourcing to demonstrate that these roles are significant. No indication of meeting GNG or ANYBIO. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. Samsmachado (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am curious if you have watched these shows to know if the roles are significant. BubbleBub (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She was in 5 episodes of the Amazon series, I wouldn't call her role as primary/significant. Whoopi was in one more episode than her and the character is only secondary. Her role in DMZ seems to be the wife of a minor character. She was apparently in Dr. Strange. They all seem to be bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In DMZ she plays the wife of Parco, the antagonist of the series (as well as the comics it is based on), and is the step-mother of Skel, who is at the heart of the conflict of the series. She is a powerful figure within their community according to this article and this article. Her character also serves as a foil for the protagonist, Alma, who used to be married to Parco. JT: (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Her role in Canal Street is discussed in a 2019 Chicago Sun-Times review and a 2019 Chicago Tribune review, she is described as a "series regular" in a 2019 Deadline report about Until The Wedding, described as part of an "ensemble cast" by a 2019 Variety report about Let Him Go, a "recurring guest star" in a 2021 Variety report about the docuseries Everybody Loves Natti, this 2021 Deadline report discusses her recurring role in Harlem and career highlights, and her role and highlights of her career are discussed in DMZ Cast, Character & Comic Comparison Guide (Screenrant, 2022), and she is described as a "guest star" in DMZ in a 2022 UPI report. I think there are sufficient independent and reliable sources about her, her roles, and career to support WP:ACTOR notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to various sources, her character in the Amazon series Harlem becomes a potential new love interest for one of the lead characters, causing her to question her sexuality. Seems like she's expected to return for season 2. 2021Pop Culture, 2021 Screen Rant In DMZ she played a significant role within the family drama/love triangle between the series protagonist Alma and series antagonist Parco 2021 Deadline , 2021 Screen Rant. These are both recent high profile projects with renown Hollywood producers and directors. Agree that there are sufficient sources about her and her career to support WP:ACTOR notability. 108.53.147.230 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saber (artist)[edit]

Saber (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable Biography of Living Person, no substantial sources, shows. No doubt, dude's a dope graf writer, but that doesn't make someone Wikipedia notable. So many examples of this. His career is kinda invisible after the LA river piece tbh Guard Dog One (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Just because he was active before the Internet was widespread doesn't mean he's not notable. A simple search on ProQuest turned up tons of sources: [6] [7] [8]. Primary sources also seem to repeat the quote from this Washington Post article [9] a lot. If you need help accessing any of these sources, please let me know, although you may have access through the Wikipedia Library. Toadspike (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added the subject's full name, which was easy to find, added content with 3 sources and fleshed out the article a bit. The subject has received wide acclaim for his mural work, including as mentioned above, from The Washington Post. Clearly meets WP:GNG, passes WP:BIO and WP:BASIC, as well as WP:ARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually can't see those links, another account to set I guess. I don't see a lot of artist's pages with so little on them or with 'review' sections. To me the very fact his graffiti buddy started the page for him and there was so little it looked like a fluff piece. You all are saying there's tons and has wide acclaim, I guess. As I said he's a dope graffiti writer. Not seeing much else though Guard Dog One (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I just noticed that the first source is a gallery selling his work. Is that good enough as a source? Guard Dog One (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is also sourced with refs from POLITICO, Juxtapoz magazine, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Glendale News-Press and KCET TV, all reliable sources and all of which show the subject's notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Juxtapoz for sure is covering him, I get that. Other articles look to mention him in passing though. And where is this famous Washington Post thing? I said from the beginning he hasn't done much since LA river, so does that count then if he has one big thing? Seems super skimpy for an artist page and still for a graff writer, though you've fattened up a bit in this process. Guard Dog One (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In 2004, the subject recreated the 1997 LA River mural for a Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County exhibit; in 2010 he was a finalist in a national health-care video contest; in 2011 he skywrote using 5 airplanes in protest of a mural moratorium, which was covered by the media, including KCET; in 2018 he was one of 100 artists featured in the book Can Art Aid in Resolving Conflicts? 100 Perspectives. Dismissing the coverage and latest work with "he hasn't done much since LA river," which was 1997, is inaccurate based on notable references of reliable sources which are now included in the subject's article. The "Washington Post thing" has been quoted in several reliable publications as well as in a book. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has been much improved since original listing, appears now to meet GNG. Lirazelf (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:HEY clearly met. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanko Barbell Company[edit]

Ivanko Barbell Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nonnotable business Loew Galitz (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing turns up in searches that isn't their own web site. Lamona (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searching ProQuest and Newspapers.com brings up a few results, but there isn't much to write home about once you filter out passing mentions, trade magazines, and advertising. I couldn't identify any sources that would contribute toward notability (particularly since the more demanding WP:NCORP standard applies), and there are no logical alternatives to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bug AS[edit]

Bug AS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, not seeing additional sources in a BEFORE search Slywriter (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Norway. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

del nonnotabe company. From the article it is even unclear whether iit even exists now. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Cribbage Congress[edit]

American Cribbage Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find any secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Canada, Mexico, and Oregon. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• del - no independent sources to evaluate notability. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability through sources independent of the subject.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete full of primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, as not covered in independent, reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future Nostalgia (The Sheepdogs album)[edit]

Future Nostalgia (The Sheepdogs album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS at the moment. Additionally there is a lot of WP:OR. Only one chart (#11) also doesn't seem like notability. This article should therefore be redirected to The Sheepdogs. LOVI33 18:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AllMusic review and chart positioning. Also found album reviews or coverage from Exclaim.ca, Toronto Sun, and National Post. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets the GNG per TenPoundHammers sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've gone ahead and improved the article using the mentioned sources, meaning it certainly passes WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM now. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Ten Pound Hammer. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Camila (album). Sandstein 19:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Into It (Camila Cabello song)[edit]

Into It (Camila Cabello song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, all the sources are primary or secondary sources from the parent album Camila. The only real source about this song is the Uproxx ranking, which is only a mid-year end list making it not so notable. Additionally, the charts and certifications can be presented in discography articles (a total of 2 charts and 1 certification). This article should therefore be redirected to the parent album Camila. LOVI33 18:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Camila (album) as a low-charting song with little notability of its own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Camila (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Event to knowledge[edit]

Event to knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Before search does not show this term in widespread, if any, use. Seems to be a theory written in one paper, which is the sole source of this article. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• del was tagged in 2009 and no references since then. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1987 Louis Vuitton Cup#Eagle Foundation (USA). Sandstein 19:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle (yacht)[edit]

Eagle (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It was part of the 1987 Louis Vuitton Cup but not in the winning team and other than that I couldn't see anything that would make it pass WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up anything noteworthy enough. Suonii180 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 1987 Louis Vuitton Cup, as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, (although the redirect to 1987 Louis Vuitton Cup is fine as well). This was hard to research because the common terms, and references to another Yacht, Ted Turner's American Eagle as simply Eagle. Jacona (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Google/Google News search does not show any sources that show that this is notable nor verifiable. Even the [11] single source in the article does not discuss this in any way other than a trivial mention.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Meher[edit]

Priyanka Meher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

References adequately do not show subject's notability. Does not pass WP:NSINGER. unable to locate any significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• del No independent coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I, too, was unable to find any sources that would demonstrate notability. Best I found were passing mentions, and that is far from enough to meet WP:GNG. Helen(💬📖) 03:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON due to the lack of multiple independent and reliable sources. The best I found was a IANS/News18 article about her role in a version of Genda Phool (Badshah song). When I clicked on the News18 tag for her name, it is the only article published. Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with it being WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps after the subject's career has taken off. As the coverage is now, it does not meet NSINGER. --Kbabej (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet any criteria of NSINGER yet, lacks significant coverage as well -- Ab207 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Bristol. Sandstein 19:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Press[edit]

Policy Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable company fails WP:NCORP I can find zero independent reliable sources that discuss the press, article is also plagued with conflicted editors. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/redirect to University of Bristol. No independent notability. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to University of Bristol. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to University of Bristol. Only sources that exist are primary sources (the official website itself). Coverage through independent sources is non-existent and thus, notability is not asserted and this article is likely to remain a stub. Content has a place on Wikipedia, but isn't notable enough for its own article and be merged someplace else.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izu Ugonoh[edit]

*Comment: Withdraw from dominator. Cassiopeia talk 23:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izu Ugonoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject is a boxer and a mixed martial arts fighters. Subject fails NBOX requirements and NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion. Subject also fails GNG as the fight info is merely routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 00:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - articles fails WP:GNG PastaMonk 03:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG if you go by Polish sources, he was on dancing with the stars here and also has articles on websites like Polsat outside off fight coverage. [12] and Onet.pl [13] and interia[14] [15] [[[User:HeinzMaster|HeinzMaster]] (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment : 50% of the Polsat source - [16] and Onet.pl [17] is interview piece and 100% interia[18] [19] is interview piece - that would make the source not independent thus fails GNG - To pass GNG subject needs to be covered by significant coverage by independent, Reliable sources where by the subject is talked about in depth and in lenght and not only passing/partially mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 05:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so just to get clarification, articles that involve quotes from the person are not valid. For example [20] this article would be valid or not? HeinzMaster (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HeinzMaster The site is independent and reliable but since it is an interview piece, that means the source become not independent nor reliable (same as subject homepage, diary, emails, letters, press releases, brochures, info from their marketing team, the promotion who their fight under, info from anyone who have affiliation/association/connection with and etc) for the info is dependent from the subject themselves. We can not use such source to contribute to the notability of the subject as per Wikipedia notability guidelines. I share you sentiment that many fighters should have a page or other promotions should be promoted to top tier; however, this is Wikipedia, we need to adhere to the guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to be clear about when articles where the subject has been contacted and answers some questions become indepedant or not. I found this, which suggests that it is just dependant on how much off the article is provided by the subject of an interview. [21] article would be sufficient with I assume. But an article like [22] or [23] would not? I am just trying to be clear and not being confrontational. HeinzMaster (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Not saying you were confrontational as I have duel with you many times and you are one of the civil editor and great contributor. My comments above were not meant to be harsh, guess I am not eloquent with my words, all I meant was the subject fails GNG and NBOX as per the guidelines. I apologies if I have offence you. Cassiopeia talk 22:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we lack sufficient indepdent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG and NBOX.--HuntGroup (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Pls read NBOX again - subject fail NBOX. Sujbect also fails GNG - Pls as sources are not independent due to the sources are interview pieces which means the info is derives from the subject/whom subject associated with. Do provide more independent, reliable sources if you think subject passes GNG but at the present stage the subject fails GNG and NBOX. Cassiopeia talk 22:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient independent sources definitely aren't lacking, passes GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: subject fails GNG - Pls note that the sources are not independent due to the sources are interview pieces which means the info is derives from the subject/whom subject associated with. To pass GNG subject needs to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources which the subject is talked about in details and in length and not passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 22:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for broader participation. BD2412 T 06:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 06:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no significant independent coverage beyound routine reports. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please look at WP:NBOX and Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment which is the criteia this page meets. --Bennyaha (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I think you can also see if you google his name you can see countless of independent reliable articles on this fighter as well. Bennyaha (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done massive amount of work so it is now up to your standard. My problem is all of these resources are out there and are not hard to find. You @Cassiopeia could have done all of this yourself, but instead of doing it yourself you got too lazy and put the article up for deletion instead. My apologies if I offend or break any wikipedia rules but you could have done this. On top of that there are other articles you have done this to as well instead of actually adding in the sources yourself which are easy to get. Bennyaha (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: non of the sources on the page are either independent or reliable to verify the info. Significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in-depth and not only merely passing mentioned to pass the NOBOX notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk
• Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX since interim titles are specifically excluded from showing notability. Searching through the sources I see coverage that is to be expected for every professional boxer--fight results and promotional material. I don't believe that is significant enough to show WP notability. Am willing to reconsider if someone can point to specific coverage that clearly meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It meets it WP:NBOX under number 2 for being ranked in the 10 top in WBO and IBF as seen on here [24] and [25]. On top of that yes he orginally won the WBO Afican and WBA Oceania titles as a Interim but later it was increase the WBO African title to full status and IBF regional title was full status WP:NBOX under number 1 is metting that too. There is actually a lot of content on google about all of this. Bennyaha (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you could show specific significant coverage, instead of saying there's "a lot of content on google" I think it would help show WP notability. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability, although the rankings help make a good case (which is why I crossed out my delete vote). Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources added by Bennyaha satisfy GNG: 1, 2, 3. – ².O.^Boxing 13:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Squared.Circle.Boxing and Bennyaha: Thank you for the sources and pls put all the sources in the articles and remove all the facebook, utube and social media sources as they are considered not reliable. Cassiopeia talk 23:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe youtube is a reliable source depending on the content for example if the content is showing exactly whats happening from a live coverage of an even then certainly that should be a good source. Bennyaha (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennyaha: Utube and all social media are almost always not reliable. It is not about showing what happened, but about the source reliability) - Wikipedia is not about the true but all bout verification by independent, relaible source - see Wikipedia:But it's true!. By the way, I have withdraw the nomination as other sources Squared.Circle.Boxing provided the cliam. Just wait for uninvolved editor to close keep the article. Thank you for your contribution. Cassiopeia talk 22:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect as proposed by Havradim.

Yud Shvat (Hebrew date transliteration) to Chabad customs and holidays#Holidays (same goes for similar redirects such as Gimel Tamuz and Gimel Tammuz); For numerical date articles: 1 Kislev to Kislev#Kislev in Jewish history and tradition; 11 Nissan to Nisan#Holidays and observances; 22 Shvat to Shevat#Shevat in Jewish history and tradition; 3 Tammuz and 12–13 Tammuz to Tammuz (Hebrew month)#In Jewish history (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad holidays[edit]

• Yud Shvat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• 1 Kislev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• 11 Nissan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• 22 Shvat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• 3 Tammuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• 12–13 Tammuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A group of small articles from Category:Days of the Hebrew calendar, that are all about Chabad holidays. These holidays already have a section in an article, Chabad customs and holidays#Holidays. The articles are very short, partially inflated with unrelated and unnoteworthy additions, and are of minimal interest to the general public outside the Chabad movement. Debresser (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser, I assume you'd prefer a redirect and merge any useful content. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much to merge, if anything at all. As I said, the articles have been bloated with unrelated and unimportant information. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:REDUNDANTFORK as follows: Yud Shvat (Hebrew date transliteration) to Chabad customs and holidays#Holidays (same goes for similar redirects such as Gimel Tamuz and Gimel Tammuz); For numerical date articles: 1 Kislev to Kislev#Kislev in Jewish history and tradition; 11 Nissan to Nisan#Holidays and observances; 22 Shvat to Shevat#Shevat in Jewish history and tradition; 3 Tammuz and 12–13 Tammuz to Tammuz (Hebrew month)#In Jewish history. Havradim leaf a message 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the logic behind a redirect to Chabad customs and holidays#Holidays for the articles with dates in words. For the articles with dates in numbers, since no similar articles exist for other dates, I'd delete them. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to have them. I believe there is a full article for each Gregorian date. See March 1, March 2, et al. For the Hebrew calendar dates, the Hebrew month articles are where the individual dates are currently kept. Havradim leaf a message 17:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Havradim: If we had all dates of the Hebrew calendar, I would have no problem with that. But as it stands, only 4 other special date articles exist apart from the above nominated 6 Chabad holidays, out of a whole 414 possible Hebrew dates. For that reason, logic and statistics dictates that we delete these as well. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we had all dates of the Hebrew calendar .... Well then, maybe we should. That is why I pointed out the Gregorian calendar articles, and why I !voted redirect instead of delete. Right now though, it seems that it is sufficient to have the individual dates in the month articles, instead of having an article for each, as in the Gregorian. And anyone can spend a few hours of their life and create a redirect for each of the 400 or so Hebrew dates (see: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST; I counted approximately 383 numbered dates, including Adar Sheni). Investing a lot more hours would get us at least one line about almost every one of those dates, including yahrzeits of notable people and other historical events in Jewish history where the Hebrew calendar date plays a significant role in their historicity. Havradim leaf a message 04:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• redirects per Havradim. THe articles contain valid referenced information. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect exactly as per Havradim. Very precise look at it all. I think that there is no issue with having any arbitrary date like 4 Iyar redirect to Iyar or an appropriate subsection. TartarTorte 18:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus at this time. I recommend re-starting this discussion at a later time once the actual importance (or lack thereof) of this event in the context of the war as a whole can be better evaluated. Sandstein 11:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Belgorod[edit]

Attack on Belgorod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not every incident in this war needs a separate article, and this one so far is just a minor issue (it may be the start of something major, but then we can create an article once this is established). It's only reported on by Tass, not independently verified, and one or a few shells fired and 4 people injured is not really a lot when seen against the scale of this war. Fram (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Redirect it to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I agree with the nominator that it's a minor issue right now and not every incident needs a separate article. Mbilalwiki (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine as per WP:TOOSOON. It could be significant enough for an article at some point but right now there's not enough to warrant it's own article. Suonii180 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: The smartest move we can do right now, is not a notable event.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no clear merge target that I can see. Curbon7 (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Belgorod. 64.82.204.2 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true. I would recommend Belgorod (now that I thin of it, it would be nice if someone could actually make a History of Belgorod article in the future) or at least Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redirect or merge Non-notable. EkoGraf (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Striking, changed my mind due to new information. EkoGraf (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it‘s the first time ukrainian forces crossed the border and attacked on russian teritorry. DaSch (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Millerovo air base attack Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  second of few 64.82.204.2 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, but that was different. It was artillery. Now it was an airstrike and they crossed the border into russia. DaSch (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is arguably much less significant than the attack on Belgorod. eduardog3000 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it‘s a major development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.104.98.157 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Not every fight needs an article. NavjotSR (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — The article needs to be reassessed for notability by the editors who commented their !vote before the helicopter attack on April 1, as it appears almost every major international RS has an article out about the April 1 attack. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it appears the new attack on April 1 is completely notable. Russia has said Ukraine soldiers crossed the border in a helicopter and conducted an attack and video footage shows a helicopter conducting the attack. This new attack should be the focus of the article, not the event on March 29th. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The April 1 attack has received somewhat more news coverage than the one on 29 March. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: and WP:SNOW. Prior assertions of this being non-notable are obviously outdated. The article in its current state has citations to Reuters, AP News, the Washington Post, and Times of Israel, and a 60-second Google search also shows Al Jazeera and Newsweek. The Newsweek article mentions it was also reported on Voice of America and the BBC. As noted in Newsweek: "It is the first accusation of a Ukrainian air strike on Russian soil since the start of the war on February 24, Reuters reported." That's a major turning point, and the notability is undeniable. -NorsemanII (talk)

• Keep if this proves to be a major part of the conflict, if this doesn't prove to be that significant, but still somewhat notable then it should be Merged into some article related to the Ukraine-Russian war (2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine is probably the best the option for merging), if literally nothing happens after this point (which is very unlikely) then Delete. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N Oppose delete the April 1 event has attracted some more significant coverage. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine per above.--Catlemur (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine as per WP:TOOSOON. We have no reliable sources on this topic for now, especially "Russia says XYZ" is not a reliable source. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine would be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and put a separate section about this attack in the main article. If this event becomes significant to the conflict later on, then that would be the only time this would be spun off as a separate article. Vida0007 (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and change title per talk page discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per talk, but I think we need to clean up a little this article. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 12:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant attack with the breadth of coverage to prove it. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article describes an explosion in Belgorod caused by an unknown actor, not an attack on Belgorod. maclean (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, video, Russia, and the US confirmed two helicopters attacked the oil place in Belgorod. Ukraine just denies the helicopters are theirs. I don’t think they are denying helicopters attacking, just that they don’t own them. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, we can write a proper article once the sources allow for more than "some explosions happened and we don't know who did it". 15 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an important event as it is one of the biggest strikes Ukraine has launched in Russia to date. Arbutus the tree (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major development of the moment. Maybe it can be merged in the future, maybe it will grow. Greg (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was an incredibly important event in terms of the way, as it marks the first time in the war that the Ukranians took the fight in Russian territory. However, it should be restructured to make light in that context, such as something like 'Belogrod Raid' Jspace727 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as we usually keep articles on 'spillover' attacks. Although Russia is the agressor state, this is only the second reported attack on Russian soil. JECE (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arbutus --Tensa Februari (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I change my mind, this is one of few incidents in Russia that may have to do with the invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawsongfg (talk • contribs)
• Keep Currently geolocation by Conflict Intelligence Team says that it was a Russian friendly fire attack, which does not decrease its notability. Boud (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chinese mythology#In popular culture. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese mythology in popular culture[edit]

Chinese mythology in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Example farm list with zero sources whatsoever since its creation in 2009, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is entirely WP:OR. You know the drill - possibly notable topic but the article is totally unsalvageable and requires a full rewrite to be encyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chinese mythology#In popular culture. This currently lacks the secondary sources to show which of the examples listed are actually notable. On the other hand experience has shown that at least some will be notable after all. A redirect at least preserves the history, so that it can be used as a basis by someone willing to invest the time to find secondary sources about the examples, and therefore in my view is much better than deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Like the various other "mythology in pop culture" articles that have been coming up at AFD recently, this is another case of a potentially notable article title whose article is unfortunately comprised entirely of inappropriate TV Tropes style trivia lists. This one has quite a few entries that are either real stretches to fit into the topic or are just flat out wrong, and the entire article is completely absent of a single source. No prejudice for a similarly named article or article section to be written with reliable, secondary sources on the topic after deletion, but the current article should not be retained in the main space, and as there is not a single secondary source, there is nothing in the current article that should be preserved. Rorshacma (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Daranios. This is the "aaargh" case, the topic is obviously notable, the current execution is obviously WP:TNTable. Ping User:Uncle G and User:TompaDompa who might add it to a to-do list or even rewrite it while this discussion is in progress (and if that happens, do ping me). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chinese mythology#In popular culture per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The content and history is useful to preserve as editors can use the material as the basis for searching for sources when writing a new policy-compliant draft. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chinese mythology#In popular culture for optimal balance between WP:ATD, WP:GNG, and WP:TNT. gidonb (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Opinions are divided, but there are more "keep" opinions. In terms of arguments, the dispute is essentially about the following: is somebody who has been reported on (apparently mainly) because of their COVID misinformation notable because of that coverage? WP:GNG would suggest so, which is the "keep" side's argument, and it's a strong one. The "delete" side's arguments are mostly unconvincing. They do not make the obvious counterargument of WP:BLP1E (whether that would apply here is another question), or persuasively question the article's sources, but mostly imply that they want the article deleted because it highlights (as do its sources) the subject's COVID misinformation. That's not a good reason for deletions, see WP:NPOV, and at any rate is a matter that can be addressed by editing. There's also some discussion about WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but I'm not seeing a deletion request by the subject himself here. Ultimately, the "delete" side fails to make a persuasive case under our inclusion guidelines. At worst, there's no consensus for deletion, but in my view, there's rough consensus for keeping the article. Sandstein 19:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Campbell (YouTuber)[edit]

John Campbell (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Users have suggested we should not have what is (in effect) an attack page, based on poor sourcing.

I have some sympathy with this, as he does seem to be mainly notable for his Covid "misinformation" (as RS has called it). I am unsure myself he is all that notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• I think the article could be improved but if we can't reach consensus on the reliability of all the sources, then I would agree with deleting.Michael Martinez (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what wP:rsn is for. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I'm not going to try to get BBC blocked on Wikipedia over 1 misleading article. I hope we can agree to keep the discussion HERE focused on the proposal. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then you accept its an RS. So this should be the end of it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't put words into my mouth. Any reliable source can publish content that is unacceptable to Wikipedia. But THIS discussion is not about which sources are appropriate. It's about whether to delete the page. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Source reliability is not absolute. A source can be reliable for one (or many) uses, and then not for another. When it comes to medical info, we need to look at WP:MEDRS. Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The news article [cited as a source] in dispute, Jonathan, is factually incorrect. There's no Wikipedia policy that's going to allow it. Michael Martinez (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • See WP:RS -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The BBC are reliable. The article was written by the BBC's own specialist health disinformation reporter. You've been repeatedly told to take your claim of unreliability to WP:RSN and have consistently failed to do so. We don't allow editors to dismiss a clearly reliable reference based on nothing more than arm waving and allusions to people on Twitter claiming an article is wrong. FDW777 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                "The article was written by the BBC's own specialist health disinformation reporter" who misrepresented the video's content, does not provide a source for her statement, and whose statement is contradicted by the older Politifact article that uses the video to debunk the Jimmy Dore video. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

              • Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
                • "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
                • "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)."
                • "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
                • "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."
              • Per Wikipedia:Verifiability
                • "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
                • "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: 'John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y,' followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say."
              • The Politifact article directly contradicts the BBC article. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                I see no contradiction between the BBC and Politifact. I also see four claims about Campbell in the BBC article, all of which appear to be true.

                • Campbell is a retired nurse educator with a huge following on YouTube.

                True.

                • Campbell released a video on 20 January.

                True.

                • Campbell said the 17,000 figure was a "huge story" and suggested COVID deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"

                True.

                • Said video was seen over 1.5 million times and shared by Tory MP David Davis.

                True.

                Which of the those are wrong, misleading or whatever else you want to claim? FDW777 (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                • "and suggested COVID deaths were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating'"
                • That's the untrue part of the BBC article. The Polifact article contradicts this point, and affirms what Dr. Campbell said in the video. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Are you suggesting Campbell never said "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Considering the entrie thrust of the Politifact article is that death totals from COVID-19 in England have not been overstated, you're going to have to actually explain exactly which sentence in the Politifact article contradicts which sentence in the BBC article.FDW777 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I provided a fuller quote on the Talk page for the Campbell article. The BBC partial quotation is just bad journalism. Anyone can watch the video to learn what he really says. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Ah, back to that old chestnut. We don't need to watch Campbell's videos for any reason, that's not how things work. FDW777 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • As I pointed out in the comments elsewhere on this page, Wikipedia policy does provide guidelines for when to look at videos that are the subject of content on Wikipedia. And I strongly recommend that anyone contributing to any article on Wikipedia about YouTubers be willing to watch any videos whose content isn't agreed upon by the "reliable sources" (as is the case with this one). That is part of the process Wikipedia wants everyone to follow in determining whether a source is appropriate. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm me for DELETE. I think based on the table provided by JoelleJay and the Coatracking argument that this article is probably not salvageable. Given the argumentative defenses of challenged edits, it will be virtually impossible to reach consensus to resolve the issues. Wikipedia cannot be made into a comprehensive record of all the people who promote questionable or debunked treatments regardless of their academic and professional credentials. If we keep this article we'll have to keep every other article that is similarly problematic. Michael Martinez (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to major, reliable sources mentioning him in relation to COVID misinformation, for which he is most notable. I would support a significant trimming down to only the most notable topics (I expect this one), with any necessary BLP edits made. The idea that deletion is the correct course of action (rather than addressing BLP or DUE concerns and trimming the article) comes across as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT without a stronger policy-based argument. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actualy I am unsure he is notable, but not because I do not like it, but because apart from covid misinformation he is a bit of a nobody. Thus it might be best to merge it with covid misinformation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is your/the evidence to show Dr. Campbell is part of Covid misinformation. Dr. Campbell has produced hundreds of videos, throughout the pandemic, using reference material from many renowned sources such as BMJ, ONS, CDC etc. The content of all his videos is support by links direct to the source. Edwardsp1916 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edwardsp1916, please don't be silly--and this is not the place for that discussion. Take it to the article talk page, if you must. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now viewed almost all of his YouTube videos and note that he states statistics from ONS (office of national statistics) and many other UK government sources. I have yet to find anything that might qualify as 'misinformation' in relation to covid-19 and gives opinion that he backs up with reference to stats that can be viewed publicly. If anything the covid 'Misinformation' is false and without merit and appears nothing more than a jab at his YouTube success. I have tried to follow the sources libelled against his alleged 'Misinformation' and have so far found them nothing more than an alternative view with poor sourcing. The negative detail of the man is misleading and without basis and many find his videos helpful. Jasper141254 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there has been significant coverage of him in the media. Some of the citations in the article seem to mention him in passing. The article as it stands now also seems to violate the original research guideline, as it presents a very biased and misleading picture of the man. While he's made some controversial statements about ivermectin, by most accounts (including UNICEF, per a citation in his article) he's actually quite a reliable source of information about the pandemic. But it's not like the media seek him out as an expert commentator or write a lot of stories about him. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those same concerns jump out to me as well with the article today, and do need to be cleaned up. Particularly the change in reactions to his videos, seemingly related to claims about Ivermectin and cause of death that was considered misinformation. But cleanup attempts should come before AfD, and that's the source of my opposition. If cleanup leaves only a very small, non-notable stub then I would be much more in favor of deletion. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • THis is not the place to discuss article content. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reliable sources in the article. His covid misinformation is what makes him notable for wikipedia -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It takes one hit song for a K-pop artist to be notable, and Campbell certainly had more than one hit song, so to speak: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], etc. (And don't go "DM and NYP aren't great sources"--true, they aren't, but they certainly indicate here how notable the man is.) Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now looked at a second video Freedom of information discussion about him claiming that only 17,000 have died in the UK of covid and he really doesn't say that. I don't know what is going on here, but we have an individual with no reliable sources about who he is (see the sources for his degrees) and who is mentioned in several controversies concerning covid. So, I still think we have a non-notable person with some coatracking going on in the article and maybe by some of the "reliable" sources. I think we need to consider carefully the BLP issues going on here. I am One of Many (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the BBC (who are very much reliable) Campbell described the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Your opinion of what he said is completely irrelevant. This seemes to be a consistent running theme at the moment, everyone popping up with their opinion of what Campbell actually meant. Those opinions are worthless here, they have no bearing on content. FDW777 (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: this is not a forum. We are not here to discuss the merits of the subject--we are here only to determine if the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Between the Guardian, the BBC and the British Medical Journal, there's enough to argue for notability. That coverage of him has said negative things is not our fault. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• To say that Dr Campbell presents misinformation might be considered, in itself, misinformation and an attack on the man’s integrity. If Wikipedia is of the opinion that he is of no importance it would be better to delete the entire entry than to misrepresent him.

  B Asmall

  Retired Health Professional 95.144.72.184 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It "might be considered", but it isn't. We decide whether to keep or delete articles based on policy, not hurt feelings. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a very unusual case. While there are some reliable sources, they only focus on a few of his videos and not him as an individual. Other than being discussed as one of many involved in several controversies, the only claim to notability is having over a million youtube subscribers, which does not meet our criteria for notability. I also decided to watch one of these videos Heart risk after vaccines and he only appears to be advocating for more research, which raises to my mind whether we also have a larger BLP issue going on here. To me, this article is about a non-notable person that is serving as a WP:COATRACK for other issues.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your wikipedia page is incorrect about John. He is very analytical about all facets of COVID, truly trying to seek the truth. He shares the raw data from various governmental agencies, discusses trends, makes predictions of trends. He is thoughtful, concerned, and re-assuring. He strongly believes and promotes vaccination and discusses the underlying reasons for why vaccination works. He discusses the importance of being vaccinated before getting COVID, as you are much more likely to have a mild case. He also discusses natural immunity, or hybrid immunity, something the CDC also agrees with. He did state that natural immunity should work earlier than the CDC based on the Israeli studies, but again fact based. He does have questions about Ivermectic. There are a lot of questions frankly about Ivermectin, more of which is coming out with the disclosure of the Pfizer documents. Dr Campbell is one of the best sources of real data, calm analysis available. The wikipedia page should be lauding his efforts, not impugning his reputation. 24.5.178.10 (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur absolutely. The videos on you tube always give his references, always correct any misapprehensions/inaccuracies and always make sure that his watchers are not taking anything he says as 'medical advice' but refers people to their own doctors. The BBC reporting of his video on covid deaths solely from covid was a complete nonsense from someone who had patently not watched, listened to or understood his video. Wikipedia should not fall into the same trap. 2A00:23C6:1381:2D01:54E2:1A1E:8824:4B03 (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BBC's Rachel Schraer is far more qualified than Campbell's Kool-Aid drinkers to understand what Campbell meant. FDW777 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cease name calling now. See warning. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        Nonsense. 2A00:23C6:1381:2D01:6562:5D09:31EB:2B12 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        What are Rachel Schraer's qualifications beyond "journalist?" Dr. Campbell has a doctorate degree in nursing and was a practicing nurse for 4 decades. How is a journalist remotely qualified to ensure medical statements are fact or fiction? Panda118 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        John Campbell has a doctorate degree in nursing education. He was not a practicing nurse for 4 decades according to his own words his only work as a nurse is from April 2016 to present. What are *his* qualifications in regard to COVID-19? Assuming you had read the BBC article, you might have picked up that the Office of National Statistics, whose statistics Cambell used to make his misleading claims in the first place, are the ones that were forced to issue the refutation of the misinformation. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • THis is my concern about notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, the WP:COATRACK is a solid concern. I'd still prefer to see an attempt to clean that up prior to AfD. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Much of what is written about Dr. Campbell is incorrect. The so-called misinformation is largely misquoting him. If you watch any video he puts out, there are reliable sources for what he is saying. (Removed. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)) There are no notes to when he said the specific things labeled as misleading. A true statement would have the video reference. Panda118 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Citing sources doesn't prevent one from either misrepresenting or cherry picking those sources, both of which can be accurately described as misinformation. As for a video timestamp, citing WP:PRIMARY sources is typically avoided here for the same reason: to prevent people from taking one a quote out of context. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable. Campbell chose to promote COVID-19 misinformation, so Wikipedia covers that (providing reliable references exist, which they do). Nobody forced him to cover certain topics. Nobody forced him to cover those topics in the way he did. He's made his choices. FDW777 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly is the covid-19 misinformation? I have looked carefully at all relevant videos and can find no evidence of this. Office of national Statistics and Zoe are the main sources of information both approved and use by UK government . Jasper141254 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Someone who gets in the news (for whatever reason) a few times I would not class a notable person. People get in the news for all kinds of reasons and then never get heard of again. Having a medium sized YouTube Channel is also not notable. The topic (or more current event) that John largely covers is also very time limited in that pandemics are only major issues for 2-3 years historically and everyone will lose interest in the topic at that point, that will mean John will really become completely irrelevant quite quickly and people completely forgetting about him at such point. This Wikipedia article on him therefore has no longevity either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottL88 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per an implied WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This is a marginal case and the biography is probably the wrong place to hash out a difference between information and dis/mis-information. I have no doubt that some of his work may warrant inclusion at Wikipedia, but a biography seems the wrong place to do this. jps (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Campbell is a public figure, deliberately so by his own choosing. He is not a non-public figure. FDW777 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, see also the supplemental explanation WP:LOWPROFILE. Also, noting that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says the user's request may (not should) lead to deletion. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did say it was a marginal case. I am inclined to the position that YouTube self-promotion is overplayed as evidence for public figuredom at Wikiepdia. Obviously, this is swimming a bit against the tide, but the comparative lack of sources that detail any biographical information about this person strikes me as fairly good evidence for my position. jps (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a public figure and BLP notability are somewhat orthogonal concepts. Having a 1M+ subscriber YouTube channel isn't necessarily notable in-and-of-itself (on a quick look, this threshold seems closer to the 5M+ range), but a person who engages in public communication on a regular basis with a large audience is not a "low-profile individual" for the purposes of policy application in deference to those who seek to avoid public attention. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I beg to differ as a principle since there are certainly ways to engage with a large audience and still be a low-profile individual these days when it is possible for just about anyone to go viral in Andy-Warhol-esque fashion. Wikipedia seems to be biased in its coverage towards the internet-famous in ways that make for problematic content curation, in my estimation. The sources in this article say hardly anything about the biography of John Campbell because that's not really what the sources are interested in. The controversy may be notable, but the person is not. Again, in my estimation. jps (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree in principle, well-known individuals can take efforts to remain low-profile, such as pseudonymity, not sharing their own face, etc; see LockPickingLawyer. I disagree in this instance that John Campbell took efforts to be low-profile on this particular topic. Which gets to the real questions of the purposes of WP:LOWPROFILE and WP:BLP1E. In the case of the latter, I'm not certain he meets both criteria 1 and 2. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I suppose one must ask if the pandemic is a single event. But as I understand it, he's received minor media coverage (no interviews, not the focus of any major media stories) for covering unreliable ivermectin claims, something about vaccines and heart problems (I'm just looking at the Wikipedia article), for reading the Pfizer document about adverse events, and for reading government statistics about death certificates. So if those are all separate events per Wikipedia, then I'd agree with you on criterion 1.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • jps, in addition to the points above about whether Campbell is a non-public figure, I don't think we can infer that Campbell has requested deletion. In the only relevant video that I'm aware of, he criticizes the page and calls it "quite funny", but stops well short of any mention of deletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did say the request was "implied". I think he may not appreciate that deletion could be a preferable option. If you think I'm reading too much into the whole thing, that's fine. jps (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad! I was "implying" a question when I should have asked it explicitly. What has Campbell said to imply that he is requesting deletion? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that his directive to his audience to engage with this website can be interpreted as such. "I am dissatisfied with this article about me" is often interpreted by me as "request you delete it". It is certainly also possible interpret such requests as "please change the wording to my liking", but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. jps (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Any difrective was in your imagination! 2A00:23C6:1381:2D01:F083:FC98:B5C8:A6E5 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLPREQUESTDELETE would only really apply in the case of non-public figures. Sources are clearly sufficient to establish notability, and also make it clear that this is a highly public figure. WP:LOWPROFILE does not seem to apply. They seem to meet all of the definition of a high profile individual. --Jayron32 15:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It does not matter what Mr Cambpell thinks, nor should it inform our choice of what we do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What makes this so difficult is the intersection of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE, combined with someone who has received coverage for spreading misinformation as well as for being a useful science communicator. The early coverage is generally positive, and most of his videos do not, from what I can tell, spread misinformation. this early story includes a pretty standard instructional video about hand-washing and talks about how he was concerned governments weren't being proactive enough. He has repeated/spread some bogus claims, however, especially regarding ivermectin, and those have been called out on the various fact-checking sites. I'm inclined to think the subject is notable based on the sources I've seen. The current version of the article seems to weigh the fact-checking sources much more heavily than the rest, but that can be fixed by editing rather than deletion (and by "fixed" I don't mean we should remove the fact that he's spread this stuff, but that the rest of the article should be built up and possible the misinformation trimmed slightly). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage of him seems marginally significant, and I think he probably merits an article even if it means trimming down per DUE.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
news.com.au	? Some secondary commentary, but also a lot of quotes (not independent)	reprint of New York Post article		✘ No
his YouTube channel			?	✘ No
NewsHub			Non-significant discussion of the sources behind some of his claims, plus a couple brief mentions	✘ No
Health Feedback (Pfizer article)			Non-significant discussion of the sources behind some of his claims, plus a brief mention of his videos	✘ No
Fact Check			Brief blurb on his background and 3-sentence overview of one of his videos	✘ No
PolitiFact		?	Non-trivial coverage of one of his videos, but not of him	✘ No
Connect Magazine	Some kind of alumni newsletter from U of Cumbria			✘ No
Newsroom	? Very little independent commentary on him, most of the article is just interview quotes about COVID		? Little coverage of him, as opposed to quotes of things he's said about COVID	? Unknown
Review of a book			? Can't access full text	? Unknown
Insider		? Unclear whether this is RS		? Unknown
News & Star	? Mostly quotes from him/his videos, little independent commentary on him by the author		Mostly quotes from him/his videos, little coverage of him	✘ No
UNICEF			Trivial mention	✘ No
Social Science in Action	Identical to UNICEF source	?		✘ No
Westmorland Gazette	Identical to News & Star article	?	?	✘ No
Health Feedback (ivermectin article)			? Mostly commentary on claims in some of his videos, but the extent of focus is non-trivial	? Unknown
BBC			Brief mention	✘ No
The Times			? Can't access full text	? Unknown
The Guardian			Passing mention	✘ No
More or Less BBC podcast	?		?	? Unknown
Mirror	Almost entirely quotes from him		Just a brief blurb on his background	✘ No
NY Post	? Half of it is quotes from him		Just two sentences on him	✘ 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) 21:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a huge stretch to argue that there is significant coverage of Dr. Campbell. There certainly is no overlap between "significant coverage" and what he is supposedly notable for, which is occasional misleading information. I am One of Many (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can see that there is little dedicated SIGCOV / RS coverage per Joelle's analysis above. For POV; Campbells content started out quite reasonable, middle of the road medical advice, however since later 2020 there has been a noticeable change in content. (Off-topic material removed. You were warned. Sources, the article, and the application Wikipedia policies only. No discussion of COVID-19 topics. Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)) He is, as such, almost certainly notable (due to coverage by the BBC, and retweeting by David Davis (British politician)) for the purposes of inclusion in other Covid19 type articles relating to conspiracy theories and misinformation regardless of whether or not all his information is misleading. Koncorde (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The majority of people editing this article and writing other articles about Dr John Campbell have not watched even a small fraction of the literally hundreds of hours of his YouTube videos, so whatever opinions they have are not based on a solid knowledge of Dr Campbell's work. Writing a balanced and truthful biography would take a huge amount of effort which I dont think any wiki editors are likely to take on, perhaps if a proper biography on him is published in the future that might be the point at which to revisit this. Paraphrased (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a WP:PAG reason for suggesting that editing about a person publishing content (YouTube personality, author, pundit, journalist, etc) requires the editors to have directly consumed content by the creator? The videos themselves aren't typically considered reliable sources, and editing should mirror RS coverage rather than being merely a summary of their content. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to answer for @Paraphrased but the Wikipedia video links policy is much less absolute than many people appear to think it is. Per Wikipedia:Video_links these are parts of the policy that address videos uploaded to Wikipedia, but which I feel are relevant to the discussion about the content of the Dr. Campbell video where he reads the government data about death certificates.
      • "There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Links should be carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion."
    • -> I am not proposing that any of Dr. Campbell's videos necessarily be used as sources for the article about him. It already links to his YouTube channel. But in terms of ascertaining the verifiability and accuracy of any news story about any given video, the video itself is the only truly reliable source of information.
      • "...Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources. The community sometimes accepts videos from the official YouTube channels of subjects, but this is not a guarantee of approval with content being unduly self-serving being just one concern."
      • "... A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge..."
    • From the "In the External links section of an article" section of that policy:
      • "Links to user-submitted video sites must abide by Wikipedia's External links guidelines (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). For example: Videos often contain less information than alternative websites or the Wikipedia article itself. This concern limits use of many videos according to ELNO#1."
    • In this case, the video is the only source of information that can be used to verify the accuracy of any news articles discussing it.
    • From "In A Nutshell" at the top of the page:
    • "This page in a nutshell: Videos on user-submitted sites can sometimes be used as references or external links, but copyright infringement and unreliability will rule out the use of many of these videos."
    • So, there is no justification for disqualifying the video out-of-hand as a reference for discussions about the accuracy and reliability of any news article that mentions it (in passing with respect to this specific video). There are no transcripts online of which I am aware. And as the video itself contradicts the BBC article's unsourced assertions, it would be compliant within this policy supplement's guideline to reference the video directly. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Michael Martinez: I agree, the videos can certainly be cited if they meet the criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF. I should have been more clear on this, instead of aiming for brevity. My reference to "typically considered reliable" was meant to point out that the above criteria are the exceptions, and using WP:PRIMARY sourcing heavily tends to result in WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. Specifically, the neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim criteria seems like it could reasonably apply to many of the places where primary sourcing to Campbell's YouTube is suggested. Above debate about whether the generally-reliable BBC misquoted a video, for instance.
      • This is the context of my concern with Paraphrased suggesting that editors who have not watched even a small fraction... of his YouTube videos are unable to edit the article capably. I'd expect that those who do watch the videos would provide context in situations where a direct primary sourcing would be helpful, with other editors being able to weigh in on their provided context even without being a follower of Campbell's videos. This suggested editing criteria would be a de facto "only those who agree with Campbell can edit" restriction. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If editors are unwilling to verify the sources they want to cite in any article - but just blindly trust that a major news site never gets anything wrong - that's a problem. Wikipedia policy pages clearly stipulate they don't want those kinds of contributions. It's not good enough that an article was published by the Washington Post, CNN, or the BBC. It must also be true and verifiable. And Wikipedia editors must make contributions that uphold that standard. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is indeed the suggestion (trust, but verify), I'm more inclined to agree. Though I'd suggest that a user quoting the relevant section of a video in the talk page discussion (rather than linking with timestamp for every editor to watch) is roughly equivalent. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • This article is very abnormal in my Wikipedia experience. And it's not about the arguments over sources. The apparent Coatracking makes me wonder just how useful the article would be if everything detailing the controversies were condensed to more appropriate NPOV language. I think moving that section to another page covering these controversies would better serve Wikipedia's audience. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The major problem with this article is its selectivity and lack of nuance. (Off-topic material removed. You were warned. Loss of all editing privileges will occur the next time with no further warnings. Discuss the article, how Wikipedia deletion policy and other policies apply, and the provenances and depths of sources only. Uncle G (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)) This article clearly defames Dr. Campbell and lacks the nuance I expect from Wikipedia articles. I don’t think it is salvageable. QuakerShan (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are at least two in-depth references about him in the article currently: Retired doctor becomes YouTube sensation for coronavirus videos". news.com.au. March 15, 2020. and Harris, Margot (March 16, 2020). "An emergency nurse went viral on YouTube for his videos on the coronavirus, bringing in millions of views on his health and science lectures". Insider. Retrieved December 21, 2021.. There's probably more, but that's the first two articles I looked at. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to point out that some of the delete !votes, such as by QuakerShan and Paraphrased, immediately above my !vote, are supporting delete because they are unhappy with the current article's approach to the subject. That's not a valid argument for deletion, rather it is an argument for improvement of the article, if their concerns are valid. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a notable topic here. Coverage by The Times, The Guardian, the BBC, the BMJ and UNICEF shows that. Whereas Campbell has earning plaudits in social media, antivax and COVID-denial sources (e.g.[31]) none of those are usable on Wikipedia. Instead the reaction in reliable non-fringe sources and from actual scientists tends to be in reaction to the "dangerous" misinformation. Thus the article is as it is, because NPOV requires us to reflect decent sources, and they are pretty much uniformly negative. Maybe one way to "disappear" the article would be to argue that it's not suitable as a biography as such, but the misinformation content would be better merged in elsewhere. It already features in Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example. Perhaps some coverage in COVID-19 misinformation too might be enough? But we need something because per RS this is arguably Britain's most notable misinformation contribution the pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous people (including me) have challenged the article's point of view. It clearly doesn't represent Dr. Campbell's career and work. It's summarizing reactions to how his videos have both shared and been used by people spreading misinformation, without distinguishing between the intentions behind his videos and the misuse. You keep implying that sites consdidered to be Reliable Sources are Infallible Sources, and Wikipedia policy doesn't recognize that kind of infallibility. The BBC article essentially repeats gossip without properly sourcing its allegation (which is only a minor point in a longer article about other people). The Politifact article cites the same information Dr. Campbell read in his video, makes the same points he did, and only rebuts the Jimmy Dore video. That is clear evidence that the BBC article re-articulates the Campbell video; and as it doesn't offer any justification for that, it has attracted a lot of objection and criticism. Your only response has been to blandly refer to RS without addressing the specific objections based on that policy. If you and other contributors are unwilling to reach consensus on these points, the article cannot be allowed to stand as it violates Wikipedia's NPOV and Reliable Sources policies. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever article exists is bound to have WP:VERIFIABLE content backed by WP:RS. Arguments that boil down to, essentially, "I know better than RS" don't really count, and are particularly egregious in a deletion discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one is arguing "I know better than RS". You keep misrepresenting what people are saying as part of a stonewalling campaign to preserve an edit (a single edit, I might add) that misinforms Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia is not to be used to spread misinformation. If you and the 2-3 other major contributors who keep using RS as a shield to protect bad edits refuse to bow to consensus, this article cannot be salvaged without a long, protracted campaign that must step carefully to avoid canvassing and other policies. Dr. Campbell isn't notable enough for that kind of attention. This article isn't worth preserving if it's not going to be done right. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is completely inappropriate, and I hope an admin will sweep up. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seconded. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your constant accusations are inappropriate and have no place in a discussion about an article or an AFD proposal. I hope YOU stop. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not the place to discuss user conduct, and users need to lay down the WP:BLUDGEON. STFU and let others have their say. everyone knows what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
  • "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. A person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. "
  • I don't see where anyone has dominated the conversation here. Uncle_G has been moderating the discussion and these off-topic accusations just make his job harder.
  • Also from the policy: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided."
  • Please stop. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Without taking sides here, do not make this about either Michael Martinez's or Alexbrn's behaviours. You're both commenting on behaviour. You've got a disagreement about a specific source. Stick to that. If it helps to focus, pretend that you're explaining to Drmies above why you think that xyr first hyperlinked source is/is not a problem, or to JoelleJay why you agree/disagree with the row in xyr source assessment table, and not arguing about each other's arguments. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the subject has voluntarily made himself notable. Posting numerous high-view-count videos and receiving multiple, independent news appearances is sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia's BLP policy does not protect subjects from criticism sourced to reliable publications. Poorly sourced criticisms may be removed on sight. Jehochman ^Talk 23:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we please stop discussing article content or sourcing here, this is just about is he notable, nothing else. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, sourcing is the only way we know if he is notable. Which source have written about him, and how much depth they have gone into writing about him, are really the alpha and omega of notability. See WP:GNG, WP:42, etc. --Jayron32 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but once the discussion goes to which source to use, we've acknowledged notability and are now in the realm of content disagreement. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is what is taking over this AFD, and should stop. This is not the place for content disputes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! He has more than 2 millions subscribers, so he has to be notable! --StellarNerd (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @StellarNerd:, could you tell us more about your reason for voting Keep? The "big number of subscribers" rationale is often unconvincing to experienced editors. You'll see it at "Arguments to avoid" under WP:BIG. You might like to read WP:N, upon which most convincing Keep rationales are based. Hope this helps. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Newsroom, Insider, and HealthFeedback Ivermectin sources are reliable and provide significant coverage of Campbell and his work. I gave some though to the reasonable WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE argument, but I've watched the video in which Campbell discusses the article about him. He describes it as laughable and criticizes it, but stops well short of requesting deletion. If we're going to start deleting articles because the subjects criticize them, I'd prefer there to be centralized consensus on the matter.

So here's the problem with the demand that everyone place blind faith in "reliable sources". The author of the BBC article says "there is one brief mention of Dr Campbell's video as a place where the 17k figure saw an uptick. No accusation of wrong-doing. No suggestion I'm fact-checking him" Rachel Schraer Tweet, 2022-02-07.

But the Wikipedia article treats that mention as an accusation of wrong-doing (Jan 25 edit: "Campbell posted a YouTube video in which he cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggesting they showed deaths from COVID-19 were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating' and concentrated on a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was recorded as a cause of death. Within a few days the video had been viewed over 1.5 million times.") That January 25 edit also ended with "Campbell's video was relayed by American comedian Jimmy Dore, who used it to claim that COVID deaths had been undereported and that it proved the public had been the victim of a 'scaremongering' campaign." This sentence accurately summarized the January 22 Politifact article I summarized here per request. However, that sentence was subsequently removed and the Politifact article was re-attached as a source for the 2nd paragraph in the article summary: "Campbell has claimed that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted...[7]" - which completely contradicts what the Politifact article claims. But, in mid-March ...

... The false claim alleged to the Politifact article was used as a justification to maintain the prevarication about what the Politifact article actually says: "As Campbell has claimed they have been inflated we can not imply this may be the case, unless RS explicitly say it is the case. So I think we need to take care how we word it to not give the impression Campbell's claim is supported by RS."

Hence, urging the closer to "discount arguments based on editors' disagreement with the reliable sources" is disingenuous and essentially asks that the whole problem that led to this AFD be left unresolved.

Maybe the AFD is the wrong solution - but unless all the people voting "Keep" are willing to help improve the article (and that includes addressing the alleged Coatracking, not just these carefully managed citations), then I infer from reading the Talk page's archives and the latest version there is a risk that whenever any 1 person complains about the problem (or some similar problem), a call for help will be placed on a noticeboard, leading to an ambush from like-minded editors who follow the noticeboard.

Based on the above manipulations, it's clear this article violates NPOV, verifiability, and original research which are all proscribed in the Biographies of Living Persons policy].

There's no way this article can be properly maintained and improved in the current situation. Without a viable alternative (such as someone doing a full rewrite ASAP), the closing decision absolutely MUST take into consideration just how much damage has been done both to this one article and to Wikipedia's reputation (vis-a-vis the dozens of complaints and attempts to fix the editing that were reverted) over the past few months. Michael Martinez (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to rehash the discussion you closed at Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 4#Politifact versus BBC. Your refusal to drop the stick over this is becoming disruptive. You have been repeatedly told if you want to challenge the reliability of the BBC article the correct venue is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you once more fail to do this, I will be taking this matter to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement since you are aware of discretionary sanctions. FDW777 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The admins have the diffs now. They can see what's going on for themselves, such as reversions like this and this. Is this an article about Jimmy Dore or is it an article about John Campbell? So, go ahead. Take the matter to enforcement. I have plenty of diffs to share. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this whole mess a few days ago. I was amazed to see that what was written in the article about Campbell didn't match the sources as you point out and that other than the coatrack of misleading claims made in the article about Campbell, there is no basis for his notability. I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vagupparai 4B[edit]

Vagupparai 4B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Questionable sources (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, TV Brics [Russian Distributor]). This additional source here is from Behindwoods [Indian Distributor]. No reliable sources and only original research from Youtube and tweets. Also how famous these awards are is questionable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Non-notable short film which does not meet the requirements of WP:NFILM. None of the awards won are significant to confer notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

may i know why this page has been deleted??

it my film every source is original Studiosang (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources cited are unreliable or non-significant, and my search was unable to identify any significant coverage of this short film in independent reliable sources. Unless there's non-English coverage that I've missed, the film fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

may i know why this page has been deleted??

ist my film every source are original Studiosang (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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