< May 17	May 19 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kurdish National Socialist Party[edit]

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

1) based on a Medium article which is not RS per Wikipedia:MEDIUM, 2) name gives no results on Wikipedia (not in its native names either) Semsûrî (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, I've searched and did not find anything to suggest notability. CT55555 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete the obvious caveat here is there may be coverage in Iraqi RS that aren't available or searchable for me, but nothing in English sources suggests they are a notable organization, and Iraqi militant groups are somewhat of a focus on English sources so it's not like they would totally escape western radar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conservation and restoration training[edit]

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

This is a directory, based almost entirely on primary sources (entries on individual universities' course catalogs), not a legitimate encyclopedia article. PROD was contested with no explanation other than enough here to merit full discussion at AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom, as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and also as it's a bit of a list, but not of notable things. CT55555 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete clearly per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C-KAD[edit]

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

I was unable to locate any sources from beyond 2008 of the this medicine. It appears the trials likely failed or have been discontinued Herravondure (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No significant secondary independent coverage. All I found were based on press releases. Company website is dead https://chakshu.com/ . — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This possibly could redirect to Acetylcarnosine, as that appears to be the mysterious active ingredient, but I doubt anyone will be searching for C-KAD, and that redirect would be based upon some speculation as to what C-KAD really was. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. Also, there are other brand names under which N-acetylcarnosine eye drops are sold, e.g. Can-C. There have been a few clinical trials but overall, I agree there's no WP:SIGCOV. Hence, Delete. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CSS Jeff Davis (1863 steamship)[edit]

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

One sentence in DANFS, one sentence here, and two words in Silverstone's Warships of the Civil War Navies. There is nothing that can be said about this vessel, as so little is known about it. Note: this is one of 4 Confederate ships named "Jeff Davis" listed in Silverstone, searching brings up many false positives for the others. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Texas. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It is embarrassing that this article was created in such a state in the first place. Not notable at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails BASIC and not notable. Intothat darkness 12:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no citations and very short, so it doesn't meet notability. Craigwikiman (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jo Hyun-woo (baseball)[edit]

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

No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. Has been tagged for that for about a month with no further development regarding that . North8000 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I'm finding a ton in Korean. None of them are particularly in depth, but he seems to be mentioned frequently in Korean sports pages. There articles talking about him being removed from the first team^[1], an article about him "doing a good job" according to his manager^[2], an article talking about his 12.0 ERA^[3], and another one mentioning his struggles at a 6.15 ERA^[4]. None of these are super convincing, but there's so many hits for him related to baseball in Korean I feel there should be enough to pass WP:GNG. TartarTorte 23:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Keep per TartarTorte, contingent upon the Korean information being transcluded. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per TartarTorte whether or not the Korean information is added, as that's not a requirement. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gas-free engineer[edit]

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

Lacking citations since 2009, this looks like a US Navy designation that may not be sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. Not sure if there is a good merge/redirect target. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A possible redirect target would be Confined_space#Entry_certification, where the term is mentioned. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I am inclined to agree that this is not a sufficiently notable term to warrant an article. I don't think a redirect would serve much use in this instance. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I has hits in google, mostly for job postings and the like. not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honda Campus All-Star Challenge[edit]

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

Non-notable college bowl. "Sources" were added with deprod, but they consisted of a couple local college newspapers and a fan wiki. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The United Negro College Fund website is not a college newspaper. Neither are the American Honda website references. I am confused as to how a 33-year old HBCU quiz competition that has awarded millions in grants to students like me has become the target of a deletion request. Are we asserting that only a certain set of quiz competitions merits inclusion on wikipedia? The program has been on television. It has been referenced by other television programs. And it has been an important part of the academic development of thousands of students who have enjoyed playing. What is the real issue here? Your misrepresentation of the added references is concerning. I hope that there is no underlying intent in this targeted deletion of an HBCU program. 1911nupe (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Honda source is considered primary since it's from the creator of the show itself. Not every TV show is notable. Please read WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@1911nupe: Also, another wiki is not a reliable source. Anyone can edit a Fandom wiki and use it to spread misinformation. Finally, we don't do "trivia" sections in articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Different World was a top-rated television series on NBC that aired for six seasons... according to its own, well-documented wiki. If the issue is with nomenclature of the section head, then say that. But deleting the reference appears to be a targeted response to diminish HCASC. For what's it's worth, I and ever other HCASC player at the time loved this episode precisely because it celebrated the program on network tv. I'll add the reference to a different section. I really don't understand your issue here. 1911nupe (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that you can't use a Fandom wiki as a source, because those are edited by fans and are not the kind of well-vetted reliable sources to verify info. It'd be like citing a YouTube comment, a Facebook post, or the comments I left on your talk page. I really don't appreciate the way you're condescending to me either, mansplaining A Different World (when I didn't act as if I didn't know what it was) and assuming that my nomination was racially motivated. Please don't attack other editors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said that not every show is notable. That seems like a pretty subjective measure, no? Only a handful of shows make it to syndication numbers of episodes. So programs that do are notable by that measure alone. Would imdb references to the episode meet wiki standards? I didn't make any assumptions about your deletion intent. I asked a question and asserted my hope that there was NO underlying intent in the deletion request of a page that has existed for several years with no drama. 1911nupe (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMDb is also user submitted, and therefore not reliable. Please read the general notability guideline and the reliable source guideline. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep sources were added with deprod and I was in process of adding more before this AfD got added to page. There are sources out there to pass GNG. [1] [2] [3] [4] From News & Record, Forbes, Black Enterprise, & USA Today respectively. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiVirusC: All four of those are paywalled and I can't see what they say. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, only News and Record is paywalled. USA Today is Free... as are Forbes, and Black Enterprise. 1911nupe (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh, all of them give me paywalls. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— 1911nupe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They exist, and only one of them was paywalled for me, alternate link for that one, this is one I used instead for citation. I don't know why they were for you, sure its paywall and not just adblock warning. Either way sources exist. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable based on initial scan of sources that are cited now. In addition, preliminary Newspapers.com search yields 454 articles on "Honda All-Star Challenge", while "Honda Campus All-Star Challenge" yields a further 300 matches. (Other search term variations may yield even more.) Even if some of these are just passing mentions, it suggests there are far more sources out there that could be mined as references. Highly recommend that WikiVirusC applies for access through Wikimedia Library, also given your other interests. It will give you the ability to "clip" and share the most relevant article links, so that we don't keep running into this paywall problem, although to be fair not every newspaper is covered, and you still need to do it the hard way for certain articles as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for suggestion, I actually got my access renewed few days ago, but was after this vote. Either way I don't tend to clip unless needed, such as when sources aren't available online. Those ones above were available and weren't even paywalled, except for the 1 which I just found posted on another paper's site. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Sources used (or added) does advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: Concerning sourcing; "They exist" (as in "out there somewhere in the universe") becomes moot whenever verifiability is challenged and goes farther with "or likely to be challenged". -- Otr500 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I literally linked 4 different sources and a mirror. I proved sources existed by linking 4 different ones here on this page. His argument was they are paywalled(which they aren't at least not for US viewers), so he dismissed them cause he couldn't see what they said. They aren't somewhere out in the universe they are right there where I linked them. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think it was directed at me, and I get it – the mere existence of sources "out there" isn't a sufficient reason, but neither is "I can't access your sources". Appreciate the selective clipping approach as well (I do wonder what happens to clippings at some point down the line), other ways at least allow for Internet archiving, etc. (Anyway still voting "keep" based on sources cited to date, the rest of the comment was just an observation.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep based on sources listed above by WikiVirusC. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The futility of the United States sanctions on Iran[edit]

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

This appears to be WP:Original research, or more specifically, WP:SYNTH and an essay. The sources appear primarily to support propositions that the article's creator than draws together to form their own conclusion. Singularity42 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Singularity42 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a POV fork from the main article.Drako (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to United States sanctions against Iran#Effects and criticism: While the topic if you were to put it in a more WP:NPOV light is potentially notable, the article is a bit of a mess right now; furthermore, if this article were to be developed as a full article it should be at Effects of United States sanctions against Iran. There likely is enough to write that article, but for now a redirect seems like the best way of going about this. TartarTorte 18:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, highly POV fork. Don't redirect because the title itself is way too POV to be useful as a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Major POV issues here, title is a red flag for POV, article is not necessary in context of United States sanctions against Iran existing. Too much history for me to make a statement about relevance of WP:SPA but seems worth noting. CT55555 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Already voted, but just a comment that redirects need not be neutral under WP:RNEUTRAL so long as WP:R#D3 doesn't apply, and I would argue that it doesn't apply here. TartarTorte 00:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete POV + OR. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the sanctions are futile, something that I will express no opinion on, then that should be covered at the article about the sanctions rather than hived off into a separate article. Such POV-forks only preach to the already converted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete You don't even have to read the article to know what is wrong with it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Aside from all the other issues, it's got such whoppers as "The US dollar is no longer popular in the international trading [as a result of imposing sanctions]." I can't read the first reference (in Persian), but the other two (not surprisingly) don't support the claim at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:POVFORK. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete pure POV NPguy (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The title violates NPOV rules. Titles should not do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Obvious POV with the title.Craigwikiman (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus appears to be that sourcing is sufficient. Star Mississippi 01:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shopping Spree[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but they're only fleeting mentions in articles about the network. Suggest delete or redirect to History of Freeform (TV channel) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

only fleeting mentions in articles about the network The third source I linked on the talk page (the LA Times article) has about 7 paragraphs dedicated specifically to "Shopping Spree", which I would say is more than a fleeting mention. (The other two linked sources are just brief mentions.) Colin M (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to draft unless substantially improved by the close of this discussion. I would also doubt that this show is the primary topic of the phrase "Shopping Spree", given the common meaning and the existence of redirects to other things called that name at the same capitalization. BD2412 T 05:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's more that no other work has the exact name "shopping spree" (the other two entries on the dab page are redirects), and the concept of a "shopping spree" itself would just be a WP:DICDEF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That the other entries on the dab page are redirects is permissible. I think this could also end up as a redirect, since this content could be merged or (as you suggested in the nom) redirected to a redirect to History of Freeform (TV channel). The concept of a "shopping spree" could be covered as a subtopic in Shopping, as it is a behavior distinct from normal shopping. BD2412 T 18:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Terrace, Vincent (2009). Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 Through 2007. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 1372. ISBN 978-0-7864-3305-6. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 190 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Shopping Spree. (Series; Game; Family Channel; 1996). Two teams, each composed of a male and a female, compete. Prior to the game each team member secretly chooses items they believe their mates will like. On stage six “stores” for each team are revealed that contain a number of prizes (including the items each has selected). In round one, the male must pick the prizes he believes his mate selected for him. If he is correct on the first try, the prize is won and they move onto the next store (the object being to guess all six in as little time as possible); an incorrect guess allows the player to take a second guess, but it also adds time to their total. Once the team has “shopped” all six stores, the opposing team plays in the same manner. Round two reverses round one (females having to determine what the males selected). The team with the lowest overall time is the winner and play the bonus round where, within 75 seconds, they have to identify which celebrities are associated with the items that are seen. Host: Ron Pearson. Announcer: Burton Richardson."
2. Rauzi, Robin (1996-09-26). "Good, Clean Fun Finds a TV Home". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  The article provides 316 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "So what is the “positive value” in shopping? (The family that shops together . . . declares bankruptcy together?) At least there’s an altruistic bent here: contestants shop for each other instead of themselves. ... The funniest part of the show never appears on television. One gimmick of the show is that each will feature a different “product model,” chosen from the studio audience, who on the show will always be referred to as Denise (or Dennis) DuJour. Between lame warmup jokes and half-hearted Macarenas, executive producer Jay Wolpert runs the audition."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Richmond, Ray (1997-03-17). "Old games find new life". Variety. Vol. 366, no. 7. pp. 38, 42. ProQuest 1505774985.
    The article notes: "The two that the Family Channel has found success with involve shopping, the idea being to appeal to homemakers who shop and, evidently, enjoy watching others do the same. In "Shopping Spree," a shopper picks out an item from each of six stores. A teammate must then divine from clues, body language, interests and shopping tendencies what his or her shopping partner has just purchased."
  2. Dempsey, John (1996-05-06). "Family Channel plays games with sked". Variety. Vol. 363, no. 1. p. 224. ProQuest 1286162933.
    The article notes: "The half-hour strips, which will run in sequence from 3 to 5 p.m. are: ... "Shopping Spree," a beat-the-clock type gameshow from Jay Wolpert Prods."
  3. Duffy, Mike (1996-09-30). "Game shows proliferate on the Family Channel". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Alas, I ran screaming from the Free Press Brain Candy Screening Pod after viewing episodes of the materialism-zonked "Shop 'Til You Drop" and "Shopping Spree." ... By the time "Shopping Spree" rolled around, I was in a catatonic couch potato state, unable to do anything but whimper as game player Sharlene told host Ron Pearson why she had sheet music of "Cats" and a picture of William Shatner pinned to her sweathshirt. Don't ask."
  4. "New game shows lead lineup". Santa Maria Times. 1996-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "3:30–4:00 p.m. — Have you ever had to buy a gift for someone you didn't know? Ron Pearson ("An Evening At The Improv") helps contestants, armed only with their wit and a few hard-earned clues, race the clock and find perfect matches for their teammates as they enter a shopping frenzy for points and prizes. ... "Shopping Spree" is a Family Game Shows, Inc. Production. Jay Wolpert is the executive producer and Shannon Dobson is the producer."
  5. Belcher, Walt (1996-10-07). "MTV special targets young drinkers". The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved 2022-05-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The Family Channel changes its daytime offerings today. Included are five new game shows: "The New Shop 'Til You Drop" at 3 p.m., "Shopping Spree" at 3:30 p.m., ... "Shopping Spree," with host Ron Pearson, has contestants racing to find the perfect gift for a stranger."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shopping Spree to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only the LA Times article seems like significant coverage. The rest is directory listings or passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There may be sufficient coverage, but I won't have an opinion to that effect until I see how it translates to cited content in the article. BD2412 T 17:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it pass WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So a bunch of passing mentions that don't combine to a full sentence are enough to you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The article should be cut down to what's verifiable in RS, and after that we might be left with a rather short permastub, but I contend that it would still be a useful permastub. The fact that this page is linked to from a dozen mainspace articles (not counting links from transcluded navboxes), suggests that it occupies a useful place in Wikipedia's web of knowledge. What if a reader of our article Service Merchandise reads the mention of "Shopping Spree" in that article and wishes to know more about the show? When did it air? On what channel? Who was the host? How did the show work? This can all be verifiably answered, but not if this article is deleted. And it's certainly not reasonable to copy all the verifiable information about the show into each of the dozen articles that mention it. (Hats off to Cunard for doing the leg work of finding additional sources.) Colin M (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you want it to stay because other articles exist, even if sourcing doesn't. Good call. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boggle (game show)[edit]

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

Trio of short-lived game shows. Sourced to "The intelligencer" but the source is so incomplete that I can't even determine what it's supposed to be. Further searching found not even the vaguest of mentions on ProQuest. Possible merge to Freeform (TV channel) but there's so little verifiable content here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nishant Kumar[edit]

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

Minor Indian youth leader, no secondary sources offered. I see no news articles online, just the British comedian Nish Kumar and some stories about a medical student who died a few weeks ago. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:NPOL nor WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL and GNG — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Clear delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill Funt[edit]

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

I initially PRODed this with the following rationale: "Non-notable individual who does not pass the WP:GNG. The only claim to notability in the article is his relation to his more notable father and brother, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Searching for sources turns up nothing but minor mentions, and no significant coverage." However, it turned out that the article had already been deleted via PROD way back in 2009, and then recreated, making it ineligible for deletion via PROD again, so I am bringing it here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, nominator has proven that notability is not asserted here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability has not been shown. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. This is a case, as noted by the nominator, that WP:NOTINHERITED. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Western States Hockey League. ✗plicit 00:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tucson Tilt[edit]

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

Article doesn't establish notability. Has been unreferenced since its creation in 2006 and I can find little significant coverage of this short-lived team. The only potential coverage I can find is this local article behind a paywall. [5]MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Ice hockey, United States of America, and Arizona. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect: to Western States Hockey League seems obvious. Ravenswing 02:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to the article on the league. Flibirigit (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Western States Hockey League, as a valid WP:ATD. No evidence the club has enough independent notability to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jason Duboe[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV other than this student paper profile from when he was a student and played lacrosse there. Not even much in the way of routine coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Non-notable sports figure. While Major League Lacrosse was the top level of pro lacrosse play, there isn't anything to show how he was individually notable, except that he played for the Cannons. Doing a quick search, I'm only finding info on his work as a venture capital broker, all from primary sources. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Fails GNG and SPORTBASIC. As a BLP the sourcing criteria is higher than trivial mentions or roster listings. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fatiniza[edit]

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

As the template message specified, many of the sources do not "appear to be independent of the singer", as they include interview clips. The usage of the blog and Facebook page as primary sources, in addition to the fact that the page was created by the singer herself, makes me question reliability. My final argument is that she only has 780 monthly listeners on Spotify, and her top song has only 17,000 listens. Absolutely no disrespect to a blossoming artist but I am afraid this post doesn't follow WP:SINGER. Uncanniey (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Colombia, and Costa Rica. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment A quick Google search show's she's popular in Dubai with some sources, unsure of how reliable they are. Might just pass the sniff test. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spotify is available in Dubai, so would her Spotify listener count not reflect the Emirati listeners? Uncanniey (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I've lived in Colombia for over a decade, and she isn't the slightest bit famous in her home country - the reliable sources from Colombia that mention her are just brief promotional items announcing a new single. I think there's more likely to be better sources from the Middle East ten years ago. Richard3120 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Press releases, videos, and interviews do not advance notability. An article created by the subject prsents a clear conflict of interest presenting Wikipedia:ADVOCACY. -- Otr500 (talk)

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 but if someone wants to create a subsequent redirect, that can be done editorially Star Mississippi 01:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN, no evidence that this is a notable subject as a group. In addition, unsourced since its inception in 2004, stops for some reason in 1960, and is incomplete even for that period (e.g. missing from the 1950s are Isabella I of Castile and Dumarsais Estimé). Fram (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Haiti. Fram (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the article has no sources. Wikipedia really needs to cut back of philatelycruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Fixable problems are never a good reason for deletion. If lists of people on stamps are intrinsically non-notable, editors should try making that case for the entire category, not pick one off here and there. In practice, questions about people on stamps are probably the most-asked that any philatelist gets from the general public, so we always thought it was an obvious list to include; but I'm game to review it against the current notability criteria and kill the whole category if it doesn't measure up. (I note that a term like "philatelycruft" is pushing the civility boundaries, let's not go that way.) Stan (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Why do you keep making the same incorrect arguments on all of these AfDs? You haven't shown that the main issue ((fails WP:LISTN etcetera) is fixable, soyour "keep" for this specific list doesn't address the deletion reason. And no one has claimed that "lists of people on stamps are intrinsically non-notable", so that strawman argument is getting old very quickly. This list is not notable, for other countries the situation may be completely different, so grouping them together is a bad idea. Please, in future such AfDs, refrain from making this same argument, it doesn't help at all. Fram (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I'm sorry that you find my arguments "incorrect", but I did phrase them carefully, after re-reviewing the deletion guidelines. For the specific problems with the article as it stands, I can fix everything in about an hour; however as the notability guidelines state, a subject that is intrinsically non-notable can never be fixed by writing more. So before diving into editing, I want to get a sense of whether I'd be wasting my time, simple as that. Stan (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  The "specific" problem with this article is that the subject, "people on postage stamps of Haiti", is not a notable group subject. It is verifiable (e.g. from stalmp catalogues, or from announcements of individual stamps), but it isn't notable. All the other problems, seen on too many of these articles, show the total lack of care that went into creating them, and the total lack of care people had in the many intervening years to do soemthing about them. But those other problems are not important if you can't show that "this" specific article is about a notable subject. So I don't understand why you voted "keep" when you don't even address the main issue with the article, the issue which I started this AfD nomination with. Fram (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  So if I understand you right, you are saying this list is intrinsically not notable, but that people-on-stamps lists for other countries might be notable. I don't see how that is NPOV - all governments around the world put approximately the same amount of effort into deciding stamp subjects, and the honoring of individuals is an especially fraught business - Jack Childs' Miniature Messages goes into some depth on the politics involved in various Latin American countries, for instance. So how does one decide which countries are listworthy? Are you going to document the criteria in a notice at the top of Lists of people on postage stamps? Stan (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  No. It is of no relevance if countries take serious care about who to put on their stamps, or simply choose whichever will sell the best all over the world. The only thing that matters is the attention that has been given to the topic "people on stamps of country X" by independent, reliable sources. It may well be worthwhile to improve the articles on the postage stamps of country X by describing how subjects in general are chosen (e.g. in Belgium, there were rules about the equilibrium between the language groups), but for these lists, as for nearly all articles, it simply is WP:GNG that counts. Fram (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Haiti. Haiti has had a variety of designs on their stamps, but I don't see why we would specifically have a list of people that have been on them but not other subjects, and an absurdly incomplete one at that. Reywas92^Talk 16:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V and due to it being trivial information which is not of very much interest except to maybe a limited audience of philatelists (and Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and aimed at a more general audience). Oppose redirect per WP:PANDORA, as this would suggest this is a good topic to create, while in fact looking at most similar entries they are beset by the same issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Oppose redirect per RandomCanadian. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete, standard unused, un-maintained, unsourced, redundant list with no clear purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This is an extreme example of philatelycruft that Wikipedia needs to be rid of. The Postage stamps and postal history of Haiti article is very, very poorly written. I think it is also an example of philatelyobession and not understanding the main point. It really should be titled Postal history of Haiti or at worst Postal history and postage stamps of Haiti, and should focus more on what really matters, the way Haiti has operated its postal service to help people communicate, and not so much on what does not matter nearly as much, which is the desing of postage stamps and even less so what pictures or representations have been chosen for postage stamps. The topic here is clearly not notable. I have notice that about half these debates are under media and music and the other half are under society topics. I am going to move them all to society topics, since coverage of the postal operations should be focused on their societal impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article was created on 7 May 2004. It has thus existed for over 18 years. It still has no sources. There is no indication that this subject has ever received coverage in any reliable secondary source. That is the absolute minimum we need to create an article. List articles require coverage of the subject of the list as a subject. This article should never have been created, even more so it should not have been allowed to linger for 18 years. I am going to call stampcollectingcruft stamcollectingcruft, because there is no other way to describe an article sitting without sources for 18 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdulmalik Al-Oyayari[edit]

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

Deprodded. Subject fails WP:GNG. Only news coverage is short, routine blurbs, which is unsurprising for a player with only a handful of professional appearances. agtx 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. agtx 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I believe the current sourcing on page is enough to meet GNG, and he's already had more than a handful professional appearances.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which source, specifically, convinces you of this? agtx 04:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The "current sourcing on the page" amounts to a stats-type site with a news link pointing to a single article mentioning him ("Al-Taawon player, Abdul Malik Al-Ayiri, suffered a knee injury while participating with the Saudi youth team. Al-Ayyari will undergo medical examinations to diagnose the infection and determine the duration of treatment."); his (inaccessible) profile on Saudileague.com; a soccerway stats page; and a trivial mention in another article ("...but Al-Taawoun returned to progress and settled the result in the second half, despite the shortage, by scoring two goals through Abdul-Malik Al-Ayiri in the 66th minute and Towamba in the 93rd minute."). These three combined sentences of routine coverage obviously don't amount to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the couple of sentences about his injury are far from enough to justify an article. I can't find any other claim to notability. I could find a few short transfer announcements but these are routine coverage only. Examples include Akhbaar and Al Riyadh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shahram Shokoohi[edit]

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

article is ref-bombed with subject's own website and youtube links. fails wp:nartist. 晚安 (トークページ) 03:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. 晚安 (トークページ) 03:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I looked in Farsi and found no in depth coverage in RIS, just interviews and promotion. Mccapra (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pk cards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Continues to fail WP:GNG since its last deletion nomination. Not mentioned in any reliable sources that can be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, no independent sources, notability not established. CT55555 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Jacona (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isle of Wight Foxhounds[edit]

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

Unclear what this mess of an article us supposed to be about. The history of fox hunting on the Isle of Wight or this specific hunting group? The article itself fails to make a credible claim to notability. The group fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. An Isle of Wight Wiki or a Hunting Wiki could host articles like this, but we are better off without them. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Based on the one external link being used and the information in stub here, it looks like this article was intended as being about a particular group of hunters called the "Isle of Wight Foxhounds", which do not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The only source is the group's own website, which clearly fails at being a reliable, secondary source. Searching for additional sources only brings up brief mentions while discussing something else (mentioning that someone was a member, for example), or mentions in local news sources. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no one supporting retention of this article across two AfDs. Star Mississippi 01:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mankuroane Technical and Commercial Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the clearly does not meet WP:NCORP and it keeps getting recreated, since speedy has been declined going to AFD. Refer to first AFD less than a week ago Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. - Hatchens (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faisal Al-Mutairi[edit]

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

Deprodded. Subject fails WP:GNG. Only news coverage is short, routine blurbs, which is unsurprising for a player with only a handful of professional appearances. agtx 14:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. agtx 14:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. agtx 14:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -borderline failed verification with sourcing, such as it exists, of questionable reliability for historical facts. Star Mississippi 01:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Tamworth[edit]

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

The article is about a supposed Battle of Tamworth in 873-74. The only source cited in the article at [6] does not mention Tamworth in this period. PROD was reverted on the ground that the battle is mentioned in Tamworth and Burgred of Mercia. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and neither articles cites a source supporting the claim. The Burgred article cites [7], which does not mention Tamworth. I work extensively on the history of this period and I believe that the article is about an imaginary event, but I will of course be happy to change my mind if there is evidence from a reliable source otherwise. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)-Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the purported "source" given in the article (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) does not mention Tamworth at all. And it's not mentioned in Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England at all as a site of a battle. In fact, Stenton states "From Torksey, late in 873, the army [Ealdgyth note - The Great Heathen Army] moved to Repton in the centre of Mercia. After a war of which no details are known Burgred, king of the Mercians, left England to spend the rest of his life at Rome." (pp. 250-251 3rd edition). So... Stenton knew no details but this article purports to give a lot ... it's feeling like a hoax to me. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Further - Richard Abels' biography of Alfred the Great, when discussing the events leading up to Burgred's abdication ... mentions no such battle/siege at Tamworth - in fact doesn't mention Tamworth at all. I think that Stenton and Abels, two modern historians well versed in the sources and period covered, should be considered much more authoritative than a 1913 article in an illustrated general-readership magazine. Nothing else I have on my (extensive) shelves mentions any such siege or battle at Tamworth. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I gotta ask - did no one at Articles for Creation who checked off on this article here it is as it looked when it got sent to mainspace even LOOK at that source link? First - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle so it's ability to show notability is a bit suspect, but that aside - on the given source here, there are TWO mentions of Tamworth (it was easy - I did a "find" on the page!) .. and one relates to events in 913 and the other to events in 918. Okay, so let's check the 873 ad 874 entries - well, nothing in 873 has anything about sacking ANY town. 874's entry is "This year went the army from Lindsey to Repton, and there took up their winter-quarters, drove the king, Burhred, over sea, when he had reigned about two and twenty winters, and subdued all that land. He then went to Rome, and there remained to the end of his life. And his body lies in the church of Sancta Maria, in the school of the English nation. And the same year they gave Ceolwulf, an unwise king's thane, the Mercian kingdom to hold; and he swore oaths to them, and gave hostages, that it should be ready for them on whatever day they would have it; and he would be ready with himself, and with all those that would remain with him, at the service of the army." Again - no seige, no sack. Nothing about Burgred going into hiding, nothing about Ivar or Ubbe, nothing about Leofrith... did no one READ the source? It's blatantly not supporting the information it's purporting to support! Nowhere on that source page is Ivar or Ubbe or Leofrith mentioned at all!!!! How did this pass AfC?? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - So ... we're to take the word of a local government over the word of Frank Stenton or Richard Abels - two historians who extensively studied the period and know the sources and stuff? GAH! Ealdgyth (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - As I seem to be the only one who has mentioned local government on this page, I am assuming that this last comment is probably directed at me. If that is so, you appear to have missed my point. If we have a government entity reporting something as fact then we probably need to make a note of it, even if we say; "Tamworth Castle and related tourism information refers to a battle in Tamworth in 874. However, this is not supported by academic sources." From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is an argument for a note on the Tamworth page, not for keeping this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an expert and haven't even been to AfD before. That said, Cox, Thomas (July 1913). "Ethelfleda's Fortress: Tamworth's Bye-Gone Glories". The English Illustrated Magazine. p. 378., says that "To Tamworth, between his warlike excursions, Offa, the greatest of the Mercian Kings, retired, and kept royal state in a palace whose proportions and magnificence are described as 'the wonder of the age'. The town was destroyed by the Danes in 874, and Mercia, as a kingdom, fell." Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(This is not a vote to keep the article, or of any kind, I just wanted to note that something did happen..!) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A 1913 article in a popular magazine is not evidence that anything happened. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't my intention to prove that any siege or battle happened, but I'll leave you to it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DGG:, who accepted the article at Articles for Creation. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further enquiries needed Given the prevalence of the idea that Tamworth was burned by the Danes in 874 in numerous online local history articles, it may be that further investigations of reliable local history sources might reveal an origin for the story. However, the article title "Battle" of Tamworth seems purely a Wikipedia coinage, repeated only on mirror sites. Even if a source relating to the burning of the town did surface, whether the burning is in any way notable must still be demonstrated Monstrelet (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep This page from the local government site for Tamworth says they created a re-enactment of the 874-75 siege. That isn't an authoritative source to say a siege happened but it is a clear indication that there is significant belief that it happened. If there isn't reliable source material to report the event as fact, we probably still need an article to report it as an unproven myth or hoax. However, this same function of noting the myth/hoax may be filled by a brief note on another article. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Popular histories aren't reliable sources for Anglo-Saxon history; I haven't seen anything cited that I think qualifies as a reliable source for this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete apparently my error. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- The only source (or main source) on this period is Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which merely tells how the Danes conquered Mercia. Anything beyond that is Original Research (in the sense used by WP), properly described as historical fantasy. We do not know what happened to Tamworth on c.874. Anything found in local histories is without any reliable source. The article quotes ASC for 913 and 918: ASC text C s.a. 913 says that Aethelflaed built a burh at Tamworth. ASC C s.a. 918 records her death there. If there was a battle of Tamworth, it was in 943 (ASC D text) says that Olaf "broke down Tamworth and great slaughter fell on either side". That is a more likely occasion for any destruction recorded by archaeology, but we should NOT have an article on this, because we know no more detail than the quotation I have just given. There is far too little known to warrant an article. If not deleted, it should be redirected to Tamworth#history, where the Anglo-Saxon section covers the subject, thiough naming a different Danish commander. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's more than that, this claim has been made in numerous published sources. There is a related discussion goin on at Talk:Tamworth,_Staffordshire#Vikings_sacked_Tamworth. G-13114 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can provide an example of a source that makes this claim that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, I would change my !vote to "keep", but as far as I can tell it's only popular histories which say this. I know I've seen examples of Victorian antiquaries adding made-up details to their accounts of Anglo-Saxon history, and those old books, which are accessible on Google Books to anyone interested, get used as sources in their turn. Hence this is a topic area where academic sources are really necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Howard (film maker)[edit]

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:NFILMMAKER. – Ploni (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Ploni (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete clearly inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Street light interference phenomenon. Valid AtD with even one of the deletes supporting this Star Mississippi 01:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jacqueline Priestman[edit]

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT. – Ploni (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Everything I found on Google covered the same basic information about her (her ability to collect static electricity on her body), plus some sites I believe are irrelevant to her. As this article is about a person with a major role in a minor event, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, because the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. But, the event does not have enduring historical significance and will not likely impact the future. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Street light interference phenomenon - there is a 2004 Guardian source in the article, as well as a 2000 The Sunday Telegraph source in the WP Library, via ProQuest, "When people and machines don't get on ELECTRICITY" that mentions "Michael Shallis, a science tutor in Oxford, made a four-year study of 600 people exhibiting extremes of bioelectricity, and published the results in The Electric Shock Book in 1988. One woman studied by Shallis was Jacqueline Priestman of Sale, near Manchester, who had ruined 30 vacuum cleaners, five irons and two washing machines in 10 years." The 1985 New Straits Times source in the article focuses on her, but seems questionable as a source. The sources seem to clearly indicate this is not a single event, but also do not appear sufficient to support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Completely agree about no enduring historical significance and will not likely impact the future. Also not enough to make her notable. I think content about her could be added to the Street light interference phenomenon article, does that count as a merge? Chronotime (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:ATD-M, Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles. Also, the diversity of sources over time and the broad geographical scope seems to be more clear if this BLP is merged into its larger context. Beccaynr (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeffrey Unger[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO. –Ploni (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It looks to me like this article would not have even survived when we had the soldier notability guidelines which were scrapped because they brought in too many non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vanessa Bishop[edit]

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

Non-notable Doctor Who fan fiction author; fails WP:NAUTHOR. – Ploni (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Science fiction and fantasy. Ploni (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Leaning~~ Keep. The subject is not a fan fiction author. Her writing was published in professional Doctor Who outlets, and appears to have been predominantly nonfiction. She might be better known under the "Jackie Jenkins" pseudonym. Some of her writing has been collected and republished in Single White Who Fan: The Life & Times of Jackie Jenkins (Hirst Publishing; 2011) ISBN 978-0-9566417-5-5 with a foreward by Gary Gillat and biographical material, which appears to be mainstream distributed and still in print. There is substantial critical commentary on both Jenkins & Bishop in [8]; also at [9]. Review here by Gary Gillatt (former editor of Doctor Who Magazine): [10]. Wikipedia Library is coming up with Matt Hills. Doctor Who's textual commemorators: Fandom, collective memory and the self-commodification of fanfac. Journal of Fandom Studies; Apr2014, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p31-51 (can't access); Tante, Dillie. cries & whispers. The Independent on Sunday March 30, 1997, p12 (paragraph); Barron, Lee. "Proto-electronica vs. martial marches: Doctor Who, Stingray, Thunderbirds and the music of 1960s' British sf television" In: Science Fiction Film and Television. Oct, 2010, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p239 (brief discussion). Google Books search for "Vanessa Bishop": [11] (half paragraph and several other possible hits not previewed); [12] (names Bishop as prominent female Doctor Who fan); [13] (paragraph with quotation); [14] (quotation; names Bishop as "long time Doctor Who reviewer"); [15] (quotation; also non-previewed page states she was co-editor of Skaro with further details); [16] (mention; plus several non-previewed hits); [17] (long quotation); [18] (no preview); and lots more Doctor Who related without preview. Google Books search for "Jackie Jenkins" [19] (long quotation); [20] (brief review); [21] (no preview, possibly article by her); and again lots more without preview. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per Espresso Addict. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. Meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify. ExpressoAddicts suggests sources may exist, fine, but this needs a rewrite. In the current form this cannot be kept. Or, maybe simpler, just tag it with ((notability))? A warning tag might encourage some folks to fix it faster. It is probably not bad enough to warrant WP:TNT, but it needs fixing (as in, it needs to demonstrate notability, which the current version does not). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per Espresso Addict. I'm satisfied it's notable can be verified, that's good enough to keep it. //Julle (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Reeve[edit]

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

Autobiographical, unsourced, and appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. – Ploni (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. A bad article, a relic of Wikipedia's worst years. It is embarrassing that we still have articles like this languishing here. The sort of music he has worked on may have an establishment status now it could not have dreamt of in John Major's day, but that does not mean we need to privilege every single minor functionary within it over people in less establishment-accepted genres. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete That an article this down right not meeting any inclusion criteria has lasted since 2006 is a true indictment that something is wrong with Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Unsourced also. Ranjith207 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as those !voting keep do not have policy or sourcing to back them up Star Mississippi 02:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Blakey (musician)[edit]

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

Deleted a long time ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Blakey (music producer), it is now recreated with new sources, but upon closer inspection it seems to be mostly nonsense, puffery, and other unverifiable stuff. He "has sold over 140 million albums" but is linked from not a single one on Wikipedia, and his Discogs page [22] doesn't give the impression that this is true. He was a "Melody Maker Producer of the Year"? Repeated in vanity sources, but not in a single reliable source it seems, and unlikely considering his career as a producer. Should be deleted as a hoax, but isn't obvious enough to get a speedy without explanation I think. Fram (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator too. The sources are not adequate or reliable. We need more and better citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I've removed content that was not properly cited. I still believe that Blakey is notable. The point of creating a stub is that people can expand it using reliable sources in the future. I believe we should give it a chance for improvement before deleting it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.241.169 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The two sources you kept are equally unreliable as the ones you removed though. "He provided the music for several television shows and films. Among them were the film “Shaft,” and “Jackass: The Movie.” " Too bad that his work on e.g. Jackass was "uncredited". "he was [sic!] produced tracks for some of the greatest artists in the world" including "No Doubt, Eminem, Willie Nelson, Engelbert Humperdinck, and many others.", but no one can tell which track he produced for e.g. Eminem or No Doubt, all sources just repeat the claim that he did. Fram (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I completely understand where you are coming from, however, it's my opinion that we should still give this stub a chance since Michael Blakey does have a long career. Having a stub will not eliminate the probabibility of other wiki contributors finding reliable resources and adding on to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.241.169 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete After a bit of investigation, the man indeed has a long career with some sort of tangental connection to numerous notable artists/projects. But his exact role in each of these is unclear and--considering lack of independent RS--points towards functionary services rather than significant contributions. I'll add that he has an aggressive personal social media presence built around braggado and puffery. The original, deleted wiki page seemed to be an extension of this. I'm not sure what to make of this possibly good faith effort to recreate the deleted page by a third party, but--bottom line--there is still not enough genuine non-self promotional RS coverage to back up claims of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As Blackey is a notable person, and he has a successful career as a musician and youtuber, this stub justified his work as credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WforWriter (talk • contribs) 00:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twitter subtitling[edit]

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

All primary sources. Page creator (Reap member) has a conflict of interest (he is the Martin Hawksey mentioned in the article). Topic doesn't seem notable. Samuel Wiki (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. Samuel Wiki (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the non-RS sources given in the article. Admittedly it is hard to target a search using such general terms, so YMMV. Lamona (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Convert to disambiguation page. Per the consensus the article will be turned into a disambiguation page Less Unless (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table game[edit]

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

This is a mess. It was created as a unnecessary split from casino game, where the section on table games became a tiny list - I just merged the referenced content back. Recently, User: Bermicourt added a sentence that this term is used in board game hobby, referenced to a dictionary (lexico.com). As a board game hobbyist, somewhat familiar with the (rather sparse) academic studies on this (such as Wood's Eurogames) which I even reviewed, I don't think this term is notable - it's pretty much a synonym for tabletop game. Which is a poor article that needs rescue, but is notable. Trying to argue that table games is a topic that exists in board game hobby aside from the concept of tabletop is IMHO incorrect and not backed up by sources, and as for the casino games, I think we should wait for the Casino game#Table games section to grow before splitting it prematurely. For now I suggest to convert this either to a redirect to casino game (I did so and was reverted), or maybe into a disambig between casino game and tabletop game concepts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and improve. Piotrus is right that the article is a mess, but redirecting it to casino game reflects a regional, legal usage. Outside of the US "table game" is a common term referring to games played on a table or using a table. So there are two distinct meanings: a narrower US legal term for a type of casino game, and a wider more universal one overlapping with "tabletop game" but not synonymous with it. There are numerous book sources out that there that use the term in this broader sense, e.g. the Encyclopedia of World Sport (1999) "the earliest mention of pool as an indoor table game"; The Activity Year Book (2009) "Billiards: a table game for two or more players..."; Word Problems: Grade 5 (2003) "... the responses of fifth graders when asked to name their favorite table game"; The Rotarian (1992) "In its early years as a table game, Billiards..."; Indianapolis Monthly (2006) "today's shuffleboard is a table game"; Table Tennis (1942) "I've met some of the finest people in the sport world through the table game..."; Board and Table Game Antiques (2008); Chambers Dictionary (2002): "table game: a board game"; Leadership for Recreation and Leisure Programs and Settings (1999): "a low, organized table game is slapjack or go fish, whereas the game farmer and pig table game is played...". These are just examples indicating the spectrum of usage across a wide range of different sources, there are many more. Even from those few sources we can give cited examples of this wider use as including e.g. pool, table tennis, billiards, card games and board games. Essentially any game on or using a table. Bermicourt (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per comments above, unless we can get proper definition and SIGCOV discussion of this, I think a dab, perhaps larger than the one I initially suggested, is fine. I do wonder if this might be better handled through creating a Category:Table games, which can be backed up by the dictionary definition we found by User:Hobit, rather then try to list all games that may be 'table games' in a disambig, however. Btw, from the definition perspective, things get messy anyway - consider. Board games can be played on the floor too. Pool or ping pong cannot... in fact, I think there should be a term for games that need a table, separate from games that just often are played on a table but don't have to be. But does it even exist? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it is messy. But I do think we should have a dab page here one way or the other. I'm less sure about a category--I'd have a hard time sourcing the use of this term. But what I did is look at the first 30 results returned by Google and Bing and concluded that there isn't a single thing that this term is commonly used to describe. There are, however, lots of things that it is used to describe. To me, that feels like a dab page is what we should have. Hobit (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doing a Google search turns up a bunch of different things--generally a hint that this should be a dab page. I'd propose we dab to at least: tabletop game and Casino game#Table games. Maybe also Ping pong, Pool (cue sports), Table football and a few others (is there a name or article for the general notion of those types of sports/games?). But I don't think the topic we have there now is the primary one. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that we need something reasonable at this target; I like Hobit's DAB idea. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page. As it stands, this is a dicdef, but the term "table game" is just ambiguous enough that it might refer to either tabletop game or casino game, the latter of which describes the term "table game" in that context. In that regard, I feel switching it to a dab between the two terms is justified. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG based on the sources in the article and others that could be added.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Kevin Blackwood (2011). Casino Gambling For Dummies. Wiley. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9781118052709.
^ Victor H Royer (2014). Powerful Profits From Casino Table Games. Citadel Press. ISBN 9780818407864.
^ Mark Bollman (2021). Mathematics of The Big Four Casino Table Games; Blackjack, Baccarat, Craps, & Roulette. CRC Press. ISBN 9781000423846.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SailingInABathTub I don't deny that casino table games likely warrant a stand alone article, but given that we have very little content about this actually written, and next to nothing in the main article, why not merge it there? In fact, I have done so (merge), so now the referenced content in this article is available at [[Casino game#Table games]]. If it grows, it can be split into a subarticle, but right now I don't see the need for that. Better to TNT the current half-disambi mess, make it into a disambig, and let someone start a proper article about table game (casino) one day. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Bermicourt (talk · contribs), ~~outside of the US the definition includes~~ some reliable descriptions include more than just casino games.^[1]^[2] I don't have a particular objection to turning it into a WP:DAB.

References

^ R. C. Bell (2012). Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations. Dover Publications. ISBN 9780486145570.
^ Hoffmann, ed. (1894). The Book of Table Games. Routledge.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page as per TenPoundHammer. There are three possible interpretations for table-game: casino games, billiard-like games, and monopoly-like board games. We have articles on all of these, so unless someone can find some overarching link between them that absolutely must be discussed in an overarching article, we don't need this article. We're not here to be a dictionary; the best thing is to use this page simply to point our readers at the place where they will find the information they're seeking, whatever their personal understanding of the term. Elemimele (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page per above - As discussed, as the term "table game" can be used to describe a couple different things, a disambiguation makes sense to assist in searches. But as mentioned by Elemimele, it does not make sense to try to cover them all together in one article when they already each have their own articles/sections discussing them individually. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page per Elemimele - the content is sufficiently covered by other pre-existing articles. SamWilson989 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page or merge back into Casino game and clean-up. Not a notable topic on its own but may be a useful search term. Jontesta (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguate per above; the article largely duplicates information better covered at a section of casino game, and the lead paragraph even already mentions other things the title may refer to (including tables game, which hasn't been mentioned here yet). eviolite (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Grateful for the work of asilvering. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heresy in Christianity in the modern era[edit]

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

This article is mostly unsourced and I do not see it as having an encyclopedical value.
I do not see how it is something else than an arbitrarily chosen (WP:OR) compilation or list of recent cases concerning Heresy in Christianity. Why are those people notable? The criterion are obscure and arbitrary. Is any person considered a heretic by their congregation (however small it may be) worthy of being mentioned? Is every trial for heresy, even those which ended up with the innocent verdict (Tony Campolo has his own section here), notable? Wikipedia would soon run out of server space if all those cases were added. "Walter Kenyon (Presbyterian, United States, 1974)" was allegedly (no source are given) refused ordination in a Presbyterian assembly after his refusal to ordain women. Is this latter case notable and why?
The earliest case here is in 1893. There is no indication in the article of what modern era is supposed to mean when it comes to date, and the Wikipedia redirect defines it as what comes after 1500. Why is the date of 1893 used, can we go before?
Most of the cases are unsourced, and some concern allegedly WP:BLP.
I fail to see how the the classification and difference of "modern" and "non-modern" treatment of heretics among the whole Christendom is taken into account, because it is unclear if there is even a difference.
In conclusion, this article is WP:OR and does not meet WP:GNG, therefore it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Christianity. Veverve (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by the nom (well, except about server space), especially because this contains some extremely alarmingly uncited BLP material that has managed to fly under the radar here because the article itself is not technically a BLP. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but prune -- This is essentially a list article, which has a validity of a kind, but there is a real BLP issue. There should in every case be a link to an article on the subject, which needs to comply with the BLP guidelines. Those found innocent after an enquiry should not be listed; equally if the subject's explanation is that he has been misunderstood. Being refused ordination shpould not be sufficient to merit inclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Heresy in Christianity and prune. As User:Peterkingiron said, there's some validity to the list itself, but I disagree with that "keep" because I think after it is pruned and cited appropriately, it will fit perfectly well within Heresy_in_Christianity#Reformation_and_Modern_Era_(1520–present); there's really no need for it to have its own page. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge makes the most sense, allowing accommodation of all the critique. 68.131.82.138 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: for the merge/keep folks @Peterkingiron: and @Sleddog116:, any objections to me pulling out all the unsourced stuff now? Should give a better idea of what might get merged in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly no objections from me. If we can prune this list and start paring things down to where they should be, it could be that we'll find there's not much reason to keep/merge. Go for it. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I've made no content decisions whatsoever (ie, I have not looked at the strength of any individual sources or the neutrality or notability of any of the content) and simply removed every person on the list for which there were zero inline citations. That leaves us with this diff: [23]. We've lost all the Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutheran examples, and most of the others too - a total of six examples remain. I propose:
merge the bit on George Burman Foster to his article, which is pretty stubby

the bit on Tony Campolo is already in his article; no further action needed

Jon Sobrino's article deals with this already, in fuller detail; no further action needed

the Methodists: the only useful thing left, I think? Unfortunately we don't have a "heresy in Methodism" article to merge them to, and they don't appear to have articles of their own. I don't really think they belong in the Heresy in Christianity article (the 1520-present section is pretty brief and I don't think it would be significantly improved by the two additions, but someone might disagree here). I'm not terribly concerned about losing these two examples.

Don Stroud: a BLP violation in hiding, I'd say - I think this should be removed entirely.
So, still a delete vote from me overall, aside from the selective merge of George Burman Foster. I don't think we should keep the essay that is currently residing in the lead. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Enough original research and trivia that it warrants deletion. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: non encylclopaedic entry -as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheldon Jacobs (footballer, born 1991)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. He played one match, as a sub, and that was probably to get the gimmick of all four brothers on pitch together. His brothers are notable, but coverage of him is limited to that limited joint appearance. Mvqr (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Mvqr (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per norm. RedPatch (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of fictional theocracies[edit]

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

Another day, another TVtropiclist of something in fiction, based on mostly unreferenced analysis that such and such entity is a theocracy and itappears in such and such movie/book/game/whatever. This fails numerous policies, guidelines and like. As it stands (a list) it fails WP:LISTN (" One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" - no such grouping has been presented, or found in my BEFORE). WP:SALAT also doesn't appear met. As an 'in popular culture' article (if someone wanted to rewrite this into theocracy in popular culture it fails WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, plus WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V are also mostly not met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Religion, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The only sources being used outside of the pieces of fiction themselves are two sources each on one of the specific listed items, and neither providing any real information on the concept outside of confirming that there is a theocracy in them. The couple sentences of prose attempting to discuss the overall topic is completely unsourced, and the remainder of the article is just a list of trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Rorschacma. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. And on that note, this topic is WP:OR. This compilation is an original synthesis and not found in any reliable sources. It's possible that there are sources that cover this topic, but there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this poorly sourced list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Only sources are primary or about specific works, lead is OR. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that sourcing exists, and other issues can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Madhabi Puri Buch[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Lack WP:NPOV, and WP:SIGCOV. Too many personal/intrinsic details are provided without sufficient sources. Besides that, Wikipedia is not Linkedin WP:NOTCV. Possible WP:UPE/WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably delete I see this article seems to have returned with sources now, however they seem very thin, there are some interesting mentions and a degree of notability, however it's nothing on the scale it needs to be to pass GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Why delete, the way Wiki works is articles evolve over time from stubs to bigger articles and finally mature as encyclopedic content. So far its just me who has contributed. I think the person is notable in the small world of woman business leaders in India and should be kept for further improvement. Amitized (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the article can be written when she hits our notability criteria. We can't "park" it here until she does. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gary Gensler is the US counterpart of Madhabi, heading the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Most of his bio is on pretty similar lines. So how is it different here? Amitized (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I don't think she's notable yet for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'our purposes' ... can you elaborate? Amitized (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for wikipedia's notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
U K Sinha ex SEBI chairperson is a 9 line article, would that go too? Would we also consider deleting Gary Gensler too? Amitized (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This and this are significant coverage in reliable sources. Meeting WP:GNG. If UPE/COI issues are evident then this should be moved to draft space. Hitro talk 08:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify - The WP:CITEKILL to verify that she is one of the 26/11 survivors with 8 citations is absolutely overkill. Corporate career is unsourced. Improve in draftspace and go thru Wikipedia:Articles for creation — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Most of that WP:CITEKILL verifies, comments, or adds context about her and her career, and I have moved most of the references and started adding them to text they support. WP:GNG appears supported by the in-depth coverage focused on her, including as noted above in The Hindu and Mint, and also the Financial Express, GQ India, MoneyControl and Bloomberg. There is also previous coverage focused on her, e.g. The Hindu BusinessLine (2020), Business Today (2010). Beccaynr (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Between 08:41 and 09:01, 18 May 2022, the nominator has taken the following actions on articles created by the creator of this article: declined an article at AfC, sent three articles to AfD, and draftified one article. While there is a brief discussion in April on the article creator's Talk page about the appearance of UPE based on an editing pattern related to a movie, the editor raising the issue also mentioned WP:AGF. Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Adequately presented and sourced. Surprising nomination.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The Hindu article [24] is extremely high quality from Wiki guidelines stand point. Considering that with other albeit scattered coverage, is significant enough to keep it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep has adequate coverage and passes WP:GNG. Samanthany (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Albion[edit]

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

I've been unable to find much in the way of secondary source coverage of this individual. The following sources are mentioned in the article:

Business Week
Fast Company
Forbes: Mark Albion on Net Impact and Its Accomplishments (I couldn't find this one online)

I also looked for any coverage of his apparent NYT bestselling book "Making a Life, Making a Living" but didn't turn up anything beyond some PR.

There's this review of another of Albion's co-written works, but I didn't find anything else significant in a search in JSTOR, Gale, or ProQuest. Sam Walton (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails BIO and the GNG, and at level worst this highly promotional article needs to be TNTed. Ravenswing 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I am not inclined to keep this, but am wondering if all of the unreferenced info were removed if there would still be enough to keep the article as NAUTH. He has written a number of what I refer to unreverently as "business porn" books - basically business books that are to business what self-help books are to the self. I find no evidence that he ever had a best seller (a NYT search on his name turns up zero), but I did find one of his books reviewed in Publisher's Weekly and there might be more reviews to be found. The PW reviews really only prove that the item was published via a respectable publisher. I did find some books listed in WorldCat, one with over 400 libraries, others in the 2-digit numbers. If someone has access to the business press it may be possible to determine if his work has an impact beyond income for himself. Lamona (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suburban Secrets[edit]

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

12 results on ProQuest, all of which are merely passing mentions. All results on newspapers.com were TV Guide listings. Zero hits on Google News. Prod contested.

Opposing a redirect so that the title can be cleared out for Suburban Secrets (film) if the TV show is deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stasi, Linda (2007-01-29). "Life is scary in suburbs". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
  The review notes: "However, the myth remains that the suburbs are totally safe - which clearly is the, er, motive behind Court TV's new "Suburban Secrets." In this latest take on the tried and true crime genre, the producers dig up (not literally) the real people who were involved in crimes that shocked the suburban communities in which they took place. So far, so good. But then "Suburban Secrets" drifts off into a format so dumb it's criminal. The real people, for reasons I hope never to understand, reenact the parts they played in solving the real crime, or worse, are made to have these bogus conversations with one another that ring as phony as the media whores who are increasingly allowed to waste our time on "American Idol.""
2. McDonough, Kevin (2007-01-29). "'Suburban Secrets' in a small town". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
  The article notes: ""Desperate Housewives" may have lost a bit of its luster, but it still inspires imitators. The new 15-episode true-crime series "Suburban Secrets" (10 p.m., Court TV) features an unseen female narrator with a droll delivery and a credit sequence that hints at the graphic techniques of the show set on Wisteria Lane. But after this slick teaser, "Secrets" settles down to a standard investigative procedural, not unlike A&E's old standby "City Confidential.""
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Goodings, Scott (2008-12-29). "Pay TV - Saturday January 3". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article notes: "Meanwhile, Melinda has built herself a new "spiffy life" as a dentist's wife in Ohio. Spiffy? It's not a good sign when this Court TV production starts with a sigh from the narrator. Indeed the light-hearted tone continues throughout. An unsolved murder has been committed for heaven's sake. One can only imagine Steve Liebmann, host of our own crime re-enactment series Crime Investigation Australia, tut-tutting at Suburban Secrets' somewhat ambivalent sarcasm."
  2. "Name shed by Court TV - nonfiction drama: truTV title chosen to better reflect content". Watertown Daily Times. The Washington Post. 2007-12-27. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Court TV, which has increased its audience every quarter for the past two years, changes its name to TruTV on Tuesday. ... For the New York-based channel that signed on in 1991 as the Courtroom Television Network, the changeover began 18 months ago - in part, Juris said, because viewers liked the nonfiction, non-courtroom shows such as "Forensic Files" and "Suburban Secrets.""
  3. "Small Starts - Edgar Allan Poe published his famous poem "The Raven" anonymously in the New York Evening Mirror on this day in 1845. He was paid $15". The Intelligencer. 2007-01-29. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article notes: ""SUBURBAN SECRETS" Court TV at 10. Behind the picket fences of suburbia lurks more than one deadly secret, and this 15-episode documentary series aims to expose an entire community of devoted mothers, community leaders and hardworking neighbors whose crimes have left their corner of the world rocked by scandal. Tonight, a vicious murder puts a neighborhood on edge in the sleepy town of Conway, S.C., when 17-year-old Crystal Todd turns up dead after a night out with friends."
  4. Vargas, Melissa (2007-02-01). "Slaying to be featured on Court TV". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article notes: "The cable series Suburban Secrets will feature the 2002 slaying of real estate agent David Nixon by Tracey Frame and show how Grapevine police Detective Larry Hallmark put the case together."
  5. Hughes, Mike (2007-01-25). "TV Best". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Suburban Secrets," 10:30 p.m., Court TV. This second new episode involves a tale of home invaders in Olathe, Kan."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Suburban Secrets to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still not convinced on the strength of Cunard's sources, especially given that the second one is barely a paragraph long and the rest are trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The New York Post article provides 404 words of coverage, while the Chattanooga Times Free Press article provides 174 words of coverage about the subject. This is enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist, hopefully for an additional party to comment either way on whether SIGCOV requirements are met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per sources listed above, enough to pass at the minimum WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After being relisted per this discussion at deletion review, more input was received herein, and consensus is for the article to be retained. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hooker with a heart of gold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See maintenance tags: mostly an essay with a list of (admittedly well-sourced) examples attached. This is AfD2, the first having been in 2008 and closed w/ no results. Fourteen years later, the same issues still stand. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Not sure, but not excited about a keep.~~Delete, explained below. My first thought when I looked at the article was WP:TNT since these long lists of examples are often pretty uninformative. I tried searching for some actual coverage of the concept of a hooker with a heart of gold, but didn't find a lot. I've added some info from this sociology article, which specifically says the archetype belongs to 1980s American films, distinguishing it from other narrative tropes about prostitution from other periods. This chapter says it evaluates the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold trope but actually mostly critiques a few versions of Moulin Rouge with very few statements about the trope at large. So I'm not sure how feasible it is to write something that's not just a glorified TVTropes article. I'm also not sure that it's justified to combine "hooker with a heart of gold" and "tart with a heart" in one article. Both seem more like marketing phrases than analytic terms. Of the sources in the article, almost none seem to contribute notability for the overarching concepy. This article on prostitutes in Hindi films, and the article " "Of Names of Women in Hindi Cinema: An Exploration in Semantics", are the only ones which don't seem to just be reviews of individual films. They use the phrase "heart of gold" but not the word "hooker." I wonder if the actual topic about which substantial sourcing exists is the broader one of "prostitution in cinema." Or should it become a list? "List of fictional prostitutes with hearts of gold" sounds a bit silly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Week keep for the article but considering deletion for the list of examples (but for now, abstain on that, see my following thoughts). The sources LEvalyn found and added suggest this topic (stock character/trope) is notable, but the article suffers from the common problem of wP:NOTTVTROPES. List of fictional prostitutes with hearts of gold is not just "silly", it fails WP:NLIST/WP:SALAT too - while the section possibly fails WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:OR, etc. (Example of OR: The list opens with "The story of Rahab in the Bible's Book of Joshua is considered by some the earliest example of this character type", but the quote used in reference does not confirm this is "som eof the earliest" - it's just the earlist entry in the list). That said, I'll note that NLIST applies to stand-alone list, so perhaps this section can be retained as a section, with a note that at present, due to lack of any reliable outside lists of this trope, it should not be split? I'll admit that due to use of quotations (good practice), it does represent above-average level of referencing. Given that most of the entries are referneced with secondary sources, which do describe relevant characters as hookers/whores with hears of gold, it is much better than what we usually discuss here. Ping User:TompaDompa for his thoughts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Film, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This seems to be a genuine stock character, as attested by secondary sources, and therefore should be treated somewhere on Wikipedia. Per WP:AtD, if an article can be improved that's preferable to deletion. First steps for improvement have already been taken by LEvalyn (thanks!). If this should in the end be not enough, an alternative to deletion would be a merge of the core content to List of stock characters, and of the sourced examples in the list to List of prostitutes and courtesans#Fictional. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How much of that core content is really usable? As the maintenance tags indicate, this is barely sourced and reads more like an opinion essay. I'd support moving the list. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Just Another Cringy Username: That might have been a problem at the time of the nomination. Have you checked out the improvements made since then? The article is no longer "barely sourced". At the time of my !vote, there were already some sentences about the concept with references, more than enough to fill a proper line in List of stock characters. Now, it would no longer fit there, and fullfills WP:WHYN quite clearly in my view. (It also should be part of the process to look if there are sources which can be used to remedy issues before an article is nominated for deletion. That's no longer an issue now as participants of the discussion here have done that.) Daranios (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'm finding quite a bit of mention so far, a lot of the coverage describes this as more of a western character trope - or at least that it pretty much originated in the west, particularly the United States. As to when it exactly started, that's less clear. It does seem to have become far more popular in the last 100 or so years, but that there were examples of this earlier on than that - they just didn't use this specific term. One PhD dissertation describes this as a more modern day spinoff of the idea of the sinner/saint trope. In any case my thought is to keep but improve so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Well sourced. Discuss on talk page anything you want to change AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 11:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: at this point the discussion was closed as keep under WP:SNOW. I am relisting this under today's log in my capacity as an uninvolved admin per WP:NACD. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 17. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep AfD discussions should be about whether WP should have an article on the subject or not. In this case there is more than enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Maintaince tags, content etc should be discussed on the talk page not at AfD. --John B123 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Explanation for my Delete. Putting my second comment here to preserve the flow of discussion. I do want to state more explicitly that we have exactly one source which is actually about the topic "hooker with a heart of gold." That's the sociological paper by Griffiths, which says it is exclusively present in 1980s American cinema. From what I see right now, everything else is either a discussion of a specific movie, which uses the phrase "hooker with a heart of gold" in passing, or it is about a much broader trope, something like "a prostitute, but what if you liked her because she was a good person" -- which is typically not discussed with the phrase "hooker with a heart of gold." (The analysis of courtesans in Hindi cinema fall into the latter category.) Just because the phrase is used a lot doesn't mean the trope has gotten actual coverage and analysis. Based on the sources, I think a "hooker with a heart of gold" article has to be about 1980s American cinema. I also think the trope in 1980s American cinema is not notable because it only has one source. Therefore, I think the question at hand is whether the 1980s "hooker with a heart of gold" trope can be meaningfully combined with some larger, actually notable topic. The lack of a name for this broader trope does not inspire confidence on that front. I increasingly think that following the sources means merging this article to a new "prostitution in cinema" article. That is the topic about which books and articles have actually been written; indeed, that is the main topic of Griffiths' sociological article. People who simply say there are "a lot of sources" need to address whether those sources are about "hooker with a heart of gold" or merely use the phrase. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In American literature, the trope (not the term) is attributed to Bret Harte, a contemporary of Mark Twain. I found a couple of sources, but I'm not sure how valid they are. I've listed them on the talk page and would welcome your input. I like the idea of an article on the depiction of sex workers in film (or literature). Seems a lot more encyclopedic and less "TV Tropes." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is another secondary source which discusses the trope('s origins) within Western literature to some degree, mostly on p. 168. It also supports the other two sources' link to Bret Harte, p. 165. Also this article, while only having one longish sentence, tells us about the ubiquitousness of the trope. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for doing this digging. On reading them, they seem to be about the other major trope for representing prostitutes, the "fallen woman." The examples discussed at length are not women who are considered morally upstanding members of their society who are beloved by the characters and the narrative (ie the hooker with the heart of gold), but rather, women who have been irretrievably ruined by prostitution, get narrative sympathy only as a tragic figure, and even then can only be considered sympathetically because the West itself is already outside of "society". One of the main examples is actually dead for most of the story. I tried pretty hard to find quotes/details to expand this article from those two sources but without luck. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LEvalyn: Those sources use the exact phrase "hooker with a heart of gold". I guess it's just short enough that I'm allowed to quote: New Wests and Post-Wests says on p. 165 "Modern literary critics attribute the origins of the Western and the stereotype of the frontier hooker with a heart of gold to Harte." P. 168 first talks about a specific example and then "...the role of the hooker with a heart of gold - the prostitute whose kind deeds compensate for her lack of virtue. That this type of prostitute was commonly depicted in works of Harte and Miller suggest that gender on the frontier was flexible. As White points out, the mythic West was a space where women existed as either virgins or whores, but the hooker with a heart of gold stereotype suggested that a woman could be both." Sounds like a summary discussion of the type (also pointing out the pervasiveness) to me. Daranios (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a recognised stock character, widely used in critical discussion not relating to film. eg from Project Muse (specific subscription only): Kristen D. Amiro (2018). Suzy's Gold Star: A Holistic Education in Steinbeck's Sweet Thursday. Steinbeck Review Volume 15, Number 1: 17-30 ("Steinbeck's many portrayals of sex workers are sometimes criticized as stereotypical "hooker with a heart of gold" tropes." ... "Sweet Thursday is a comedic novel, with Fauna as the ultimate grande dame "hooker with a heart of gold.""); Jung Ha-yun (2020). Of Voice and Men: Kim Hoon Rewrites History as His Story. Azalea: Journal of Korean Literature & Culture Volume 13: 11-22 ("As a translator, one of the instances that I found uncomfortable is the chapter in Song of the Sword ... involving the courtesan Yŏ-jin ... Kim's account is a fictional one, which, to the contemporary reader, does far less to achieve verisimilitude about medieval life than clumsily resort to the cliché of the "hooker with a heart of gold.""); Robert Haas (2011). Homer on the Range. Classical World Volume 104, Number 2, 245-251 ("One character, incidentally, has no Homeric precedent: Maudie, the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold, who fills the stock Western role of a romantic love interest for Arch."); Katie N. Johnson (2009). Before Katrina: Archiving Performative Downpours and Fallen Women Named Sadie in Rain and The Deluge (1922). Modern Drama Volume 52, Number 3, 351-368 (" both The Deluge and Rain recycle a classic hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold story – a tale about a repentant prostitute called Sadie who reconciles with her scarlet past." ... "while both plays recycled a classic [End Page 354] hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold story, Rain offered a more captivating and resistant scarlet woman, the first of a long line of Sadie Thompsons."); Lee Parpart. "Feminist Ambiguity in the Film Adaptations of Lynne Stopkewich" in The Gendered Screen [25] ("Stopkewich’s adaptation clearly announces itself as a rejection of the “hooker with a heart of gold” template that has so often been recycled in Hollywood products as diverse as Pretty Woman, Trading Places, and Leaving Las Vegas, and in non-film narratives from Nancy in Oliver Twist to the Hebrew Bible’s Rahab.") and many more (31 hits in total for the quoted phrase). ETA: They also include several discussing the use in American film well pre-1980s. ETA2: Also several discussing the trope in Roman/Greek drama, including an interesting note "The notion that possessing a "golden nature" ... makes her a "true hetaira" recalls Theognis's obsessive wish to find a pistos hetairos just like himself, "refined gold when rubbed on a touchstone" (Thgn. 415-18, 449-52). The similarity of language and theme suggests that the "hooker with a heart of gold," who becomes a staple of New Comedy, is an adaptation of an older aristocratic ideal." p185-86 in Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece [26]. ETA3 Open-access article that cites two 1970s books on portrayal women in film that discuss the archetype.[27]. While I'm aware that most of these aren't discussing the trope itself, surely we can source a list of characters that reliable sources discuss using this terminology? I'm not seeing any reason to delete this content, even if a broader article on portrayals of prostitution would be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing this digging. Of these sources, most seem to be exactly what I mean about a sourcing using a phrase rather than being about the trope. Only Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold seems to be doing more than identifying a certain text as an example or counterexample of the phenomenon (that one speculates about the origins of the trope). If all we're doing is sourcing examples, then we're talking about a list, which should pass WP:NLIST. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was initially trying to find examples to show it wasn't just applied to 1980s American film, and was a much broader and older trope. I think the Stopkewich one is also useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to highlight LEvalyn's point. It doesn't matter how many examples we can collate; it matters how much the topic has been discussed in secondary sources. Remember WP:NOTTVTROPES, WP:NLIST, and WP:STAND. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I'm baffled by the repeated assertion that this passes WP:GNG based on the sources we have found so far. Yes, the topic exists - no one disagrees. Yes, this is a recognized stock character. But we need secondary sources that discuss the trope, not merely speak its name. What we have is a massive list of passing mentions ("charactername is a hooker with a heart of gold"), not in-depth coverage of the trope itself. The article that results from these sources will be entirely made of WP:OR, or it will be more properly named "list of hookers with a heart of gold". That already exists, here: [28]. I'm not !voting delete because I still haven't had a chance to do a proper look for better sources, but there isn't sourcing here or in the article for a Keep right now, despite the proliferation of footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asilvering: After recent improvements there is currently no content without references (aside from the introductory line, which customarily doesn't need one), so there is no WP:OR going on. And yet we do have a non-stubby article, if a short one, which is the goal of the notability requirement in the first place. And that's when not all found secondary sources have been worked into the article yet. Daranios (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. there's emough, especially is one does not get pedatic in expecting the exact phrase, but acepts synonyms. For example, the trophe is discussed in every book about early 20the century film smd popular novels of the period. . I cannot immediately think of a better title--there are many synonyms, of vaious degrees of euphemism. The assumption that he sources merely list the characters ifs falso--they are usually discussed. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow Keep. Well known trope since at least the time of Rahab. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FeydHuxtable Care to address the issue of WP:NOTTVTROPES? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Just Another Cringy Username In my view the article already contained sufficient analyses to be exempt from WP:NOTTVTROPES, even more so when taking into account the sources detailed by editor Espresso Addict. As you still had concerns I've further expanded the article. To pick out just one of the top tier sources I used, the Cambridge University Press book Prostitutes and Matrons in the Roman World has an entire chapter analysing hookers with a heart of gold, talking about the historical development of the trope, mentioning a few real world examples, and discussing the social purpose of the trope. Theres such an abundance of good sources analysing the stereotype that it would be trivial to expand the article to good article status if one had a few days to spare. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I was pinged for my opinion by Piotrus.
Looking at the cited sources, I must say that this isn't by any stretch of the imagination a well-sourced article. The number of sources is really not that important (we're not going for a much-sourced article, but a well-sourced one), the quality is what matters. That's quality as it relates to the topic of the article, specifically.
What the topic of the article actually is/should be could go two ways: either the character archetype or the phrase (i.e. WP:WORDISSUBJECT). I'm assuming we're going for the former here (the latter would necessitate starting the entire article over from scratch), but it's worth keeping in mind that the character archetype and the phrase used to refer to it are two distinct topics.
Having said that, this is in a pretty poor state. As pointed out by LEvalyn and Asilvering, what we want is proper secondary (or tertiary, I suppose) sources discussing and analysing the general concept. This should be obvious: an article on X should be based on sources on X. Basing an article on sources about something else makes for an article of poor quality. The reason for this in the specific context of fiction/popular culture is outlined in the essay WP:CARGO: Simply amassing raw data, and hoping that an encyclopaedia article will magically arise from it, doesn't work. [...] Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.) This is also in line with WP:WHYN—we need quality sources to make a quality article. The sources do not need to be exclusively on the topic at hand, but they do need to be significantly on the topic at hand and in-depth in their coverage (WP:Significant coverage). Likewise, the article need not exclusively cite these kinds of top-quality sources—sources on adjacent topics can be useful for fleshing out the details—but they do need to provide the foundation and backbone of the article.
With all this in mind, we can't really keep the article in its current state, because it is—to be blunt—bad. We have a few different options available to us.
At minimum, this should be redirected to List of stock characters (and an WP:ANCHOR for direct linking to the relevant entry should be added) if we don't keep it as a stand-alone article. I don't think it's in dispute that this is a widely-recognized character archetype, and we do have sufficient sourcing for a single-sentence definition.
Another possible solution would be to convert this to an article on the broader topic of Prostitution in fiction or similar, as LEvalyn suggested. I would suggest moving the article to draftspace until the conversion is complete in such a case, since this would entail a complete rewrite.
The ideal solution would of course be to locate additional sources focused on and analysing the concept in general and rewrite the article based on those, but then we have to actually follow through on that. If we are to keep this as a stand-alone article, the list of examples needs to go. Merely enumerating examples of X in fiction is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is of course WP:NOTTVTROPES. Examples should be integrated in prose alongside relevant analysis (again, WP:CARGO), and their sourcing should meet the requirements set out by MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. People keep citing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes, but it is not policy just an essay, and in fact was only moved out of the author TenPoundHammer's userspace on 27 April. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NOTTVTROPES used to redirect to WP:NOT, which is policy. I hadn't realised its destination had changed to an essay. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a good essay, and there is nothing wrong with citing them in various discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not when some/most of the people citing it think it's a redirect to WP:NOT. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment What if we merge the list of examples to List of famous prostitutes and courtesans? Many of the existing examples are already there and it would make this article less "TV tropey." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good shout - I wouldn't normally support something like that, but it might be a good compromise so we can remove the unsightly tags. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fore School of Management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was closed as non-consensus in past. But I want to open it again for a proper discussion. It was suggested that this is a not-for-profit organisation and hence WP:CORPDEPTH is not applicable. But it is not true. Check Business Standard a very WP:RS that explains the situation [29]. NGO status is only a front and such private institutions are essentially profit making. There were two sources presented in last AFD. The telegraph source [30] is written by an alumni so can’t be WP:INDEPENDENT. The BS news [31] is a PTI feed. Also, this BS news link is not entirely focused on FORE. It uses the FORE incident as a premise to highlight the overall issue. Frankly, discussion about FORE in this is minimal. So I don’t think that is a significant source either. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Education. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete None of the coverage explains why this school is significant or notable. All run of the mill coverages. Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is a for-profit company therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breaker High[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but they are both fluff pieces. One is a Huffington Post listicle about shows that Drake enjoyed watching, and the other is a "where are they now?" that mostly focuses on Ryan Gosling. Newspapers.com and ProQuest gave only TV Guide directory listings and press releases. Everything else was just a superficial mention in an article on Ryan Gosling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Leszczak, Bob (2018). Single Season Sitcoms of the 1990s: A Complete Guide. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 30. ISBN 978-1-4766-7077-5. Retrieved 2022-05-18 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Breaker High Breaker Productions, Inc./Saban Entertainment/Shavick Entertainment. UPN. (September 15, 1997–March 30, 1998). Fourty-four episodes were filmed without a laugh track in Canada, where the show aired on YTV. Breaker High is High School on the High Seas. On a cruise ship that travels the globe, the students learn history and geography up close and personal. Of course, many of the students also get up close and personal, thus producing romantic (think Love Boat), comedic and dramatic moments. ... There were numerous exotic settings on this dramedy that aired each weekday for nine weeks, but all of the 44 episodes were filmed in Burnaby, British Colombia, Canada. After one season, UPN docked the cruise ship for good. The executive producers were Haim Saban, Shuki Levy, Russa Manche and Ian Christian Nickus."
2. Ryan, Andrew (2007-04-21). "The Breaker High graduates: Where are they now?". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article notes: "Gosling had little choice at the time, since Breaker High existed for a solitary season back in 1997. Created for broadcast on the struggling UPN network, Breaker High focused on a group of precocious teens attending high school on a luxury cruise ship. (Think The Love Boat meets Saved by the Bell.) Filmed in Burnaby, B.C., the show produced 44 half-hour episodes, which YTV aired incessantly in the years to follow. As one of Breaker High's principal characters, Gosling played the slicked-back character Sean -- a supposed ladies' man whose constant efforts to appear smooth usually made him look foolish. ... As the rebellious and slightly dense Max, Vickaryous was presumably the character who brought in the young female viewers. Born in Port Alberni, B.C., he was a standout high-school athlete (football and wrestling) whose first TV gig came on Breaker High."
3. Kappler, Maija (2019-05-08). "Drake Loves 'Breaker High.' Here Are More Canadian TV Shows We Miss". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  The article notes: "For anyone unfortunate enough to not be familiar with the best boat-centred show ever to be filmed in Burnaby, B.C., "Breaker High" only ran from 1997 to 1998, but its impact was long-lasting. It's about a group of teenagers attending high school on a boat, and it features a teenage Ryan Gosling as a dorky type who tries hard to be cool. What more do you need from TV, really? It could occasionally focus on topics like like drinking and teen pregnancy, but unlike Degrassi, it hinged more on a sitcom feel than on Issues Facing Teens. It also included lots of bucket hats, chokers, and the iconic "C8" rating when it aired on YTV, indicating that it's appropriate for kids aged eight and up. Sample episode description: "Jimmy becomes the third wheel with newly dating couple Sean and Tamira and can't seem to leave them alone. He then accidentally broadcasts their makeout session on Shipwreck Radio." Don't you hate it when that happens?"
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. McNamara, Lynn (1997-11-30). "Cast of TV's Breaker High laid low. Despite popularity, Vancouver-shot teen series one of several to be axed". The Province. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Although I'm told the TV show Breaker High was extremely popular with the teen set, the Vancouver-shot series for United Paramount Network has been cancelled. ... the cast and crew of Breaker High, produced here by James Shavick, will be looking for work. The teen stars of Breaker High, which has been airing on Baton Broadcasting, are Ryan Gosling, Rachel Wilson, Wendy Kenya, Tyler Labine, Persia White and Scott Vickaryous. Production will continue until mid-December; the produced episodes will go into syndication."
  2. Helm, Richard (2000-03-27). "Vickaryous's career takes off". Calgary Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "When his run with Breaker High ended a couple years back Vickaryous felt the timing was right to hit the road again. The one-time Alberta football and wrestling star had left home in 1996 for acting lessons in Vancouver, and soon afterwards, a heartthrob role on Breaker High. Filmed in Vancouver, the teen show quickly developed a devoted core following, partially for its melding of Beverly Hills 90210 and the Love Boat, and partially for its casting of Vickaryous as the hunky captain's son."
  3. Portman, Jamie (1998-09-05). "Edmontonian's acting career takes flight". The StarPhoenix. Southam Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "But what turned him into a teenate heartthrob was Breaker High, the Vancouver-filmed TV series about a high school that operates on board a cruise ship. Vickaryous's dark good looks landed him the role of Max Ballard, the rebellious son of the ship's captain. The series stopped filming more than a year ago, but it keeps popping up on reruns, especially in Canada, where it continues to enjoy a huge following both on individual local stations and also on the YTV cable network."
  4. Mangan, Jennifer (1997-12-07). "Looks Can Deceive". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The characters of UPN's "Breaker High" (weekdays at 4 p.m. on Ch. 9) also look like they were plucked from the pages of Seventeen magazine, but the program's high point is its interactive approach to learning. (Breaker High is a boarding school aboard a cruise ship that takes its 500 students to places like Africa, China and New Zealand for some hands-on learning.)"
  5. Williams, Ollie (2015-03-06). "Breaker High is real: on board the school that sails the world". CNN. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
    The article notes: "Who wouldn't want to go to school on a cruise liner with Ryan Gosling? That was the dream in the late 1990s when Breaker High, the tale of an ocean-going group of high school students, became cult kids' viewing. Breaker High handed Gosling, then 16, his break in TV -- pllaying a teenage nerd trying to get the girl. Cori Shepherd Stern created the show. A junior production company worker when her bosses asked for a companion to Sweet Valley High, Stern pitched the idea and suddenly had an order for 65 episodes, though in the end 44 were made."
  6. "Drake brings 90s nostalgia with Breaker High throwback at Raptors game". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Canadian Press. 2019-05-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
    The article notes: "Drake loves breaking records and also Breaker High, it seems. The Toronto rapper, who recently surpassed Taylor Swift's record for the most wins at the Billboard Music Awards, wore a sweatshirt with the logo for Breaker High at Tuesday's Toronto Raptors game. The late 1990s series was filmed in Burnaby, B.C., and followed students who attend high school on a cruise ship."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Breaker High to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Globe and Mail and Huffington Post pieces, which I mentioned in the nom, are just random listicles with no journalistic merit. I don't think Huffington Post is even an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but either way, it's just a clickbait piece about Drake and other randomly selected shows the editors wrote about to make a listicle. Everything else is just a one-sentence blurb. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- You in both your nomination and your reply have ignored the book source, but I also think that the Globe and Mail piece, even if a "where are they now" piece, clearly shows a sustained focus on the show, given that it was twenty years after it aired, and was associated with one of the biggest newspapers in Canada. matt91486 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Where are they now" piece is still just a randomly selected listicle. It has all the journalistic cred of Buzzfeed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This certainly does need improvement, but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on whether they're all already in the article or not. For a show that aired 25 years ago, the best sourcing won't google, and instead will have to be recovered from archives — and indeed, on a ProQuest search I found that substantial WP:GNG-worthy coverage most certainly does exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So a listicle about Drake is a reliable source now? I couldn't find jack shit else. Did you find something I didn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you miss the part where I said on a ProQuest search? Did you miss the part where I said For a show that aired 25 years ago, the best sourcing won't google, and instead will have to be recovered from archives? Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did do a Proquest search and so did Cunard. And all either of us found were tiny little droplets of trivial mentions. Look at every source Cunard dug up. None of them combined is a full sentence about the show. HOW IS THAT SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE?!?!?!?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you want me to just ASSUME that there might possibly maybe be sources we don't know about yet, when Cunard has already proven that nobody in the show's entire existence dedicated more than half a sentence to it, and the only thing of note afterward is a "where are they now?" fluff piece that is about the actors and not the show at all? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What part of I actively searched ProQuest are you failing to comprehend? Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You searched ProQuest but didn't show what you found though. Am I supposed to just take your word for it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it pass WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which sources? The ones that are listicles that only mention the show in passing, or the ones that mention the show in even more passing? I have yet to see one reliable source in all the "Keep per Cunard" votes here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from the sources. Come on, even I recognize this show. There's no way that shows that most in the country have heard aatebout, airing on major networks, should be nominated. We need some common sense here, and not more time-wasting nominations. Nfitz (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Väinameri Conservation Area[edit]

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

I think limited-conservation areas (or special conservation areas) (Estonian: hoiualad) shouldn't be presented as a standalone articles in enwiki. At best, we need List of limited-conservation areas in Estonia. In total there are over 319 limited-conservation areas in Estonia. And it seems to be obvious clutter in enwiki, if we do 319 inferior articles about them. Etwiki has done some of them, see et:Kategooria:Eesti hoiualad Estopedist1 (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, probably. Well, I'd hesitate to argue with Estonians about Estonian special conservation areas, but something seems wrong here. For one thing, talk of "limited-conservation areas" I find unhelpful as seeming to play down their importance with an incomprehensible phrase. For another, the article, though a stub, is already useful in a) indicating that the area exists b) showing where it is with a helpful map, and c) naming some of the key species that it helps to protect. It would seem a shame to delete all of this only for someone else to start from scratch. Further, I'd have thought the notability of a place like a special conservation area was more or less established, though of course more sourcing would be helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The nomination fails to provide a policy- or guideline-based rationale for deletion, and it's not "obvious clutter". While additional sourcing and expansion would help, at the moment this is a reasonable stub about a geographic area defined by a national government entity. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grace Vera Davis[edit]

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

The lead states "One of her most notable achievements was her obtaining a Master’s degree from Midwestern University in 1954." which is great for her but not quite Wikipedia level notable. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This is a family history piece and not an encyclopedia entry. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. A search turned up no reliable sources to show notability. I agree with Mccapra that this reads like a family history. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, a beautiful little bit of family research, and no doubt a good and worthy person, but WP isn't the place to publish family history. If only our articles on genuinely notable people were so nicely written and illustrated. Elemimele (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete "While she made no significant contributions to the betterment of mankind, her legacy of education and material objects is still important to her surviving family." So she herself admits it's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No indication of encyclopedic notability per WP:GNG. Not a subject for an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This would be great information for a family genealogical newsletter, but has no encyclopedic worth. The article says it best: "Grace Vera Davis was an average woman. While she made no significant contributions to the betterment of mankind, her legacy of education and material objects is still important to her surviving family." --Kbabej (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Whilst well-researched, I agree with the above this isn't encyclopedic material. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This article is just a genealogical entry, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The article even admits that the subject lacks notability, strange but true. Anyway, a Google search I conducted only produced a few hits, which were all passing mentions of her. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anne Terzibaschitsch[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. –Ploni (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Ploni (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question to the nominator. Your justification is quite brief... In the context of the volume of hits in Google News, Google books etc, and the large number of books she's clearly written, don't you think she's got a good shot at WP:CREATIVE? CT55555 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comment. For me Google News yields no hits, and the Google Books results are almost exclusively her own works. She's published a fair number of books, but I haven't been able to find significant coverage elsewhere. I stand to be corrected, though! –Ploni (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CT55555 By "books", do you mean her compositions? Those wouldn't fall under WP:NBOOK. The rule of thumb would be WP:COMPOSER instead. -- asilvering (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, I'm not certain, there was so many, they looked like musical textbooks, they could have been compositions, but I didn't translate, and assumed the nom had looked into this, hence my question. My first impressions (not verified) were that she created a significant body of work. CT55555 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CT55555 I don't think they're textbooks exactly, so much as collections of songs to learn piano from. I know that sounds like a textbook when I write it out in a sentence, but I think anyone who's ever taken lessons for a popular instrument like piano or violin is familiar with the kind of book I mean. "Christmas Songs for Piano Beginners" kind of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, I don't disagree. My question was a genuine open question, I wasn't implying any answer. I think WP:COMPOSER seems better than my suggestion and if I find the time, I'll try to assess against that. CT55555 (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CT55555 Don't worry, I understood it as a genuine open question. Sorry if I implied otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair point. She does not appear to pass WP:COMPOSER in any case. It seems she's published almost only music textbooks or exam pieces, and I can't find evidence of her textbooks being particularly influential, or of any notable compositions. –Ploni (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Ok, I'm not seeing a reasonable pass of WP:GNG or anything else here, but I wouldn't rule it out, so if someone finds something substantial, please ping me. This is a useful page to get a sense of her work: [32]. Basically, she is a piano teacher who publishes volumes of her compositions for the sake of students who are learning to play piano. I think she has a "significant body of work" in the sense that it is large, but it's not the kind of work that gets reviewed or discussed in ways that lend themselves to writing an encyclopedia article, and I don't believe that it is of historical significance either. It's not WP:COMPOSER-meeting stuff. As for google and news hits, I'm finding quite a few hits about her work being performed by school bands and the like, but nothing that's in-depth discussion of her or her work (those articles are about the school's music programs). We can add some sources to this unsourced article, but there is very little we can say with WP:RS other than a sentence or two about how she is a piano teacher whose compositions are used in schools - that is, we can't really say anything about her or her work. So no grounds for an article. -- asilvering (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A comment on the de-wiki context: her article there went to deletion discussion in 2008, was deleted, then overturned. There's also quite a bit of drama on the talk page about claims that were in the article that Terzibaschitsch apparently was unhappy with and whether they came from adequate sourcing (those claims are not in the current en-wiki article). German wikipedia has very different inclusion guidelines than en-wiki's (to simplify: en-wiki's are based on whether sources exist, where de-wiki's are often based on factual criteria like "companies with n employees are notable" and "authors with more than x published non-fiction books are notable"), and in general I wouldn't look to a deletion discussion from 14 years ago for precedent. The main argument in favour of keeping the article on de-wiki was "has lots of non-fiction books"; also mention of how her work is used in many (elementary) schools. I don't think any of this is helpful for our discussion here; I simply bring it up to pre-empt the inevitable "but did you look at the de-wiki article" question. -- asilvering (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no indication it meets MUSICBIO and no adequate citations provided. Samanthany (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Whiston[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. – Ploni (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete finding nothing additional on search. Artw (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete citations provided are not adequate. No indications it meets MUSICBIO. Samanthany (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embassy of Indonesia, Buenos Aires[edit]

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

Embassies are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:GNG. All this article does is confirm it exists and lists its address and ambassador. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sorority Life, as the least bad solution. The disambiguation page can not exist with only one link to a topic that qualifies to be on a disambiguation page. The sole "keep" vote in the discussion is premised on the sole legitimate use, and would suffice if this were an RfD, but has no basis in policy for keeping as a disambiguation page. No prejudice against recreation if multiple articles on entities by this name, or describing entities by this name, are created in the future. BD2412 T 06:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delta Xi Omega[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

dab page for a red link (which I can't find an AFD for) and a redirect that isn't currently mentioned on the University page it redirects to. Most of the hits for "Delta Xi Omega" online appear to be for an Alpha Kappa Alpha *chapter* called Delta Xi Omega. Naraht (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It does seem to exist, hits for a fraternity in some places and a sorority in others. It is a redlink in Sorority Life which probably accounts for the UB link in the dab. Not really covered anywhere in WP, so delete is probably better than a redirect. MB 14:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It existed; it was a local sorority founded at UB in 1988; it was featured on MTV's Sorority Life season 2 in 2002; it was disbanded by the school in approximately 2008. I contributed to the original post because I find value, but otherwise I don't have much to justify Keep. As far as I know, there is no article to accurately redirect to which provides information about the sorority. "Delta Xi Omega". whiterox 1:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment whiterox not doubting that it existed. I've created and improved pages on national fraternities and sororities that no longer exist.

- Delta Xi Omega at UB is no longer recognized and according to https://www.buffalo.edu/studentlife/life-on-campus/clubs-and-activities/search/fraternity-and-sorority-life.html it appears that it merged(?) with Alpha Sigma Alpha's UB chapter and is a non-recognized group called Zeta Phi.
- Delta Xi Omega at Faulkner , I'm still trying to figure out why it was mentioned at Wikipedia at *all* even as a redirect other than possibly a list of Faulkner's local clubs (The school has no national GLOs)
- As for the deltaxiomega.org website, I can't even tell what group it is for. The website has an image for a coat of arms(?) and *nothing* else.Naraht (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is complicated, and more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A strange case. There is a Delta Xi Omega chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha in Salisbury, North Carolina, that doesn't seem like it is a college organization but more a women's fraternal org. The website with just a crest, per Internet Archive, used to be the domain for the sorority at UB, and an archived History page has that same crest ([33]). The site came down about the middle of the decade. News results dry up both in the UB Spectrum and the Buffalo News after MTV left town despite continuing on to at least 2010. A redirect to Sorority Life may be the best course of action. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of production battery electric vehicles[edit]

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

Too many to list nowadays - for example there must be thousands of 2-wheelers Chidgk1 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Valid information and navigational list. If its a valid category, Category:Production electric cars, then its a valid list since list give more information and are more useful than categories. Dream Focus 15:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most vehicles are not cars but feel free to rename the article if you wish to reduce its scope Chidgk1 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a category for Category:Production electric vehicles but it was merged with Category:Electric cars, a subcategory now of Category:Electric vehicles. Last month this article was moved from its original name of List of electric vehicles. We should change it back to match the proper category name. Dream Focus 15:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My argument is based on the current name and scope of the article - if you wish to change its name or scope please go ahead. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I see no basis for deletion. This article doesn't attempt to list 2-wheelers anyway, and the article could be renamed to limit scope to automobiles. Existence of a category is not a basis to keep though. In coming years as most models are electrified a thorough reorganization may be appropriate, but not yet. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My argument is based on the current name and scope of the article - it currently has a section for motorcycles and scooters - if you wish to change its name or scope please go ahead. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles#Motorcycles_and_scooters has nothing in it but a redirect telling people where to go for that information. If anything is too long, a side article is created and linked to. Dream Focus 17:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every day I see electric three wheelers - I guess there must be hundreds of manufacturers of 3 wheelers worldwide. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy-based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, navigation is better served here using categories. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Valid information and navigational list. WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NLIST due to being extensively discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Wang, Q.; Jiang, B.; Li, B.; Yan, Y. (2016). "A critical review of thermal management models and solutions of lithium-ion batteries for the development of pure electric vehicles" (PDF). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier. 64: 106–128.
^ Detlef Stolten; Nancy Garland; Remzi C. Samsun, eds. (2016). Fuel Cells; Data, Facts, and Figures. Wiley. p. 30. ISBN 9783527693917.
^ Hovi, I.B.; Pinchasik, D.R.; Figenbaum, E.; Thorne, R.J. (2019). "Experiences from battery-electric truck users in Norway". World Electric Vehicle Journal. 11 (1): 5.
^ Ma, H.; Balthasar, F.; Tait, N.; Riera-Palou, X.; Harrison, A. (2012). "A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles" (PDF). Energy Policy. 44: 160–173.
^ Hardman, S.; Shiu, E.; Steinberger-Wilckens, R. (2016). "Comparing high-end and low-end early adopters of battery electric vehicles". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 88: 40–57.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SketchFighter 4000 Alpha[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. All sources I'm seeing are either non-english (which since I only know English I can't tell if they show any reliability) or just say that it released and is Mac only. (note that this was copied from a PROD I did since i did not know the article had previously been PRODed) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Computing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There is a small (1/3 page) review in Mac Life (July 2007, p. 73) and I found a longer review on Macworld.com [34] (and few short news about development). Notability may be borderline, but I think this game may pass GNG. I will look for other sources. Pavlor (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also found that Mac Life review on Google Books too, along with a review from Macstories.net. Assuming Macworld and Macstories are reliable, it should be barely enough to pass WP:GNG. I'm voting a Weak Keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep There are some reliable sources covering the article subject, so it may - in my humble POV - pass GNG. Pavlor (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Also found this Engadget source, which has some opinions, like "this is a great little game with graphics so simple, it'll surprise you how much fun it is," making it a mini review of sorts. Therefore, it seems to scooch past notability barely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polonca Frelih[edit]

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

Heavily promotional and unsourced. WP:COI concerns have also been raised. Firestar464 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has been repeatedly vandalized, as I have pointed out before. I deny any COI and refuse to see any promotional material in the piece. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Slovenia. pburka (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a different issue, most sources are not third-party sources about the journalist in particular but more like passing mentions. The one that goes into details is a blog post. I could see the article to be kept but sourcing needs to be improved considerably first. --Tone 16:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a bit of research into wiki articles about slovenian journalists and found there are far less third party sources included compared to article about PF listed for deletion. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Merljak_Zdovc.

Double standards? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:OSE. Firestar464 (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firestar464 is constantly removing well sourced parts of the article. How can sourcing be improved in this case? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're referring to my first edit that restored the AfD notice, which you removed. I restored an earlier revision of the article, which unfortunately caused collateral damage. In that case, feel free to restore those parts. Cheers. Firestar464 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't remove the AfD notice. You removed sourced material. Why is that? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is wrong with this particular part, that you keep removing? "Back in Slovenia, Frelih was accused of bias in her reporting, the allegation she dismissed by arguing that pro-Ukrainian view of the conflict was "over represented in Western media". In 2015 the case against Frelih was reviewed by Journalists' Ethics Council of Slovenia. The council ruled in Frelih's favour confirming in their official statement that Frelih's news coverage did not violate journalists' code of ethics.^[1] Shortly after, Frelih's name and personal details appeared on the Myrotvorets website where she was called an "enemy of Ukraine". Slovenia's president Borut Pahor voiced concerns over journalists safety during his talks with ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko.^[2]" Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what is wrong with this, that's also being removed constantly:

Awards=[edit]

For her article on Belarus youth struggling under the leadership of Alexander Lukashenko, Frelih received an award from Belarusian opposition organisation Belarus in Focus. She was named the best speaker of the World Schools Debating Championship 1998, held in Bukarest, Romania.

References Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, it wasn't intentional. It resulted from my reverts of your removals of AfD notices. Firestar464 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeat: I didn't remove AfD notice. If it wasn't intentional, I will put this parts back. Let's see, if it stays this time. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like you removed the notice again. For the last time, please. stop. Firestar464 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you from Ukraine? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No; does it matter at all? --Firestar464 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

should the page be deleted? 46.208.254.153 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what we're discussing right now. You are allowed to make arguments for or against deletion. Firestar464 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would argue in favor of deletion purely on the basis that the page creator appears extremely emotionally invested in this page which to me indicates WP:COI. Much more detailed and includes details e.g. about subject's school than I would expect for a figure with such little notable coverage. However, it may merit a considerably shorter article if anyone is prepared to sift through mainstream Slovenian sources. Autumnotter (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has devolved into accusations.
I noticed a pattern: removing sourced parts connected to Ukraine and parts that present journalist in question as objective. For example: removing parts about her being critical towards Putin etc, award from Belarus opposition for her article on belarus dictatorship... I sense an agenda - presenting journo in question as pro-Kremlin. Feel free to do it, but not "generally regarded as pro-kremlin" style. Can you explain what is "heavily promotional"? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] it seems heavily promotional to me too WP:COI, I am reinstating edits that state the plain facts about accusations, while disregarding apparent attempts to deflect / defend subject from accusations of pro-Kremlin bias 46.208.254.153 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] I deny any COI and refuse to see any promotional material in the piece. Back in Slovenia, Frelih was accused of bias in her reporting, the allegation she dismissed by arguing that pro-Ukrainian view of the conflict was "over represented in Western media". In 2015 the case against Frelih was reviewed by Journalists' Ethics Council of Slovenia. The council ruled in Frelih's favour confirming in their official statement that Frelih's news coverage did not violate journalists' code of ethics. Shortly after, Frelih's name and personal details appeared on the Myrotvorets website where she was called an "enemy of Ukraine". Slovenia's president Borut Pahor voiced concerns over journalists safety during his talks with ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Pro-Kremlin bias was established by whom? Any third party sources, please. You are clearly reinstating edits Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] reinstating edits without proper sourcing. Remove the article, if it bothers you that much, but don't pretend it's about sourcing. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] I also sense WP:COI. Are you affiliated with Myrotvorets? Andrea Rocchelli, an Italian journalist murdered by the Ukrainian army in 2014 during the Donbas war, has been filed on the site. In Rocchelli's file, on whose photo the Myrotvorets Center has applied the red writing superimposed "Liquidated", there is a note stating that the photojournalist was "cooperating with pro-Russian terrorist organizations" and that he had violated the border of state of Ukraine to enter the territory occupied by "Russian terrorist gangs". In 2018, Svetlana Alexievich, Nobel Prize in Literature, received threats from local nationalists and had to cancel a meeting with readers in the Green Theater of the Ukrainian city of Odessa when her name was added to a list of "enemies of Ukraine" by the Myrotvorets for "propagating interethnic discord and manipulating information important for society". Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] In your zeal to show the subject of this article as pro-Kremlin you are using unsorced accusations and reinforcing factual errors, contrary to wikipedia own material: Alexander Kofman was never self-proclaimed head of DPR, but the first foreign minister (EDIT FROM IP TO ADD: THAT YOU RECOGNISE HIM AS A MINISTER OF A UKRAINIAN REGION UNRECOGNISED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD IS PART OF THE PROBLEM): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Kofman.png RBTH was never financed by the Kremlin, but from the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] I think where the IP is coming from here is your suspiciously heavy emotional investment in the subject and editing, which is a hallmark of COI editors. However, accusations are accusations, and they certainly aren't helping here. This should be dropped. Firestar464 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Are you sure the IP is not coming directly from the Kremlin? I agree about dropping accusations and sincerely hope you will finally stop inserting pro-Kremlin wherever and whenever it suits you. I hope you'll also stop using poorly disguised threats.I don't mind being dropped from editing and I don't mind one of my wiki articles being deleted, but I sincerely hope you are not planning to publish my address on Myrotvorec site? Do I really have to start playing hide and seek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrevocabile tempus (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has devolved into accusations.

I noticed a pattern: removing sourced parts connected to Ukraine and parts that present journalist in question as objective. For example: removing parts about her being critical towards Putin etc, award from Belarus opposition for her article on belarus dictatorship... I sense an agenda - presenting journo in question as pro-Kremlin. Feel free to do it, but not "generally regarded as pro-kremlin" style.

Can you explain what is "heavily promotional"? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it seems heavily promotional to me too WP:COI, I am reinstating edits that state the plain facts about accusations, while disregarding apparent attempts to deflect / defend subject from accusations of pro-Kremlin bias 46.208.254.153 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deny any COI and refuse to see any promotional material in the piece.

Back in Slovenia, Frelih was accused of bias in her reporting, the allegation she dismissed by arguing that pro-Ukrainian view of the conflict was "over represented in Western media". In 2015 the case against Frelih was reviewed by Journalists' Ethics Council of Slovenia. The council ruled in Frelih's favour confirming in their official statement that Frelih's news coverage did not violate journalists' code of ethics. Shortly after, Frelih's name and personal details appeared on the Myrotvorets website where she was called an "enemy of Ukraine". Slovenia's president Borut Pahor voiced concerns over journalists safety during his talks with ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Pro-Kremlin bias was established by whom? Any third party sources, please. You are clearly reinstating edits Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reinstating edits without proper sourcing. Remove the article, if it bothers you that much, but don't pretend it's about sourcing. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also sense WP:COI. Are you affiliated with Myrotvorets? Andrea Rocchelli, an Italian journalist murdered by the Ukrainian army in 2014 during the Donbas war, has been filed on the site. In Rocchelli's file, on whose photo the Myrotvorets Center has applied the red writing superimposed "Liquidated", there is a note stating that the photojournalist was "cooperating with pro-Russian terrorist organizations" and that he had violated the border of state of Ukraine to enter the territory occupied by "Russian terrorist gangs".

In 2018, Svetlana Alexievich, Nobel Prize in Literature, received threats from local nationalists and had to cancel a meeting with readers in the Green Theater of the Ukrainian city of Odessa when her name was added to a list of "enemies of Ukraine" by the Myrotvorets for "propagating interethnic discord and manipulating information important for society". Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your zeal to show the subject of this article as pro-Kremlin you are using unsorced accusations and reinforcing factual errors, contrary to wikipedia own material:

Alexander Kofman was never self-proclaimed head of DPR, but the first foreign minister (EDIT FROM IP TO ADD: THAT YOU RECOGNISE HIM AS A MINISTER OF A UKRAINIAN REGION UNRECOGNISED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD IS PART OF THE PROBLEM): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Kofman.png

RBTH was never financed by the Kremlin, but from the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Beyond. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think where the IP is coming from here is your suspiciously heavy emotional investment in the subject and editing, which is a hallmark of COI editors. However, accusations are accusations, and they certainly aren't helping here. This should be dropped. Firestar464 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure the IP is not coming directly from the Kremlin? I agree about dropping accusations and sincerely hope you will finally stop inserting pro-Kremlin wherever and whenever it suits you. I hope you'll also stop using poorly disguised threats.I don't mind being dropped from editing and I don't mind one of my wiki articles being deleted, but I sincerely hope you are not planning to publish my address on Myrotvorec site? Do I really have to start playing hide and seek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrevocabile tempus (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ "Skupnost razom.si proti Poloni Frelih, Delo". 24 December 2015.
^ "Slovenski in ukrajinski predsednik o spornem črnem seznamu, na katerem so tudi slovenska imena". 24Ur. 11 July 2016.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input, less sniping please. Irrevocabile tempus I'm going to put a note on your talk, but please drop the accusations or you risk being blocked from this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - while this person might be well-known in their small country, any controversy is local, even though it involves international reporting. A college student who writes a paper on international law is not automatically notable; nor is an international reporter automatically notable because she took a photograph of a famous person, or who editorialized on a war. As with many a journalist, there are few reliable sources about her. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Sarajevo[edit]

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

Embassies are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:GNG. All this article does is confirm it exists and lists its address and ambassador. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sufficient sourcing has been found, however this does not preclude a merger if folks feel editorially it should be covered within History_of_CNN_(1980–2003) Star Mississippi 01:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CNN NewsStand[edit]

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

Seems to be an abstract branding that CNN has thrown around for various items, none of which are notable on their own. Sources already in the article barely mention it at all. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --Closeapple (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep so far; if not, Merge to History of CNN (1980–2003). To clarify some things: The subject isn't the NewsStand name itself — the recent reuse of the name for an airport shop, and the removal of the other names from the lede, makes it confusing. The actual subject of the article is single mandated project — a forced corporate synergy combination of Time Inc.'s various magazines and Warner's CNN — that was mostly rejected repeatedly by the audience, and finally killed off in 2001. There was a CNN & Time, a CNN & Fortune, and a CNN & Entertainment Weekly. (I should mention that I created the article in 2007 and I don't know why I only used one source, which only covers the "Valley of Death" debacle, not the overall project, which starts to look like I was engaging in WP:OR; I must not have been that experienced at that point.) This already seemed at the time (and still seems to me now) to be a major and expensive failure for CNN, like a years-long CNN+. I'm saying "weak keep" because I'm pretty sure sources on this, and the corporate insistence on rebranding it and pushing it after repeated failures, can be found with the right search terms. Maybe there would be coverage either by CNN's own media reporters (such as [35]) or Columbia Journalism Review? Some right off the bat that I found tonight that at least hint at the problems:

1998 (turn JavaScript off to see the text): Cauley, Leslie; Reilly, Patrick M. "CNN and Time Magazine Are Facing An Extremely Bumpy Road to Synergy". The Wall Street Journal (English ed.). The magazines and CNN continue to work together, but recent projects and collaborations don't seem as ambitious.
1998: American Journalism Review published 5 articles in its September 1998 issue, mostly about the "Valley of Death" debacle, but a couple of the articles touch on the "synergy" thing as a factor:
- Callahan, Christopher (September 1998). "An Embarrassing Time". American Journalism Review. Archived from the original on 2015-02-17. Time and CNN had launched an earlier version of their ``journalistic experiment" in March 1997, called ``Impact: CNN and Time on Special Assignment." Time reporters and editors produced ``Impact" segments throughout the show's 15 months on air. But ``NewsStand" premiered in June with a new twist on Time Warner's foray into the media synergy game: lengthy CNN-reported stories published in Time.
- Paterno, Susan (September 1998). "An Ill Tailwind". American Journalism Review. Archived from the original on 2017-02-27. As CNN's new president, Kaplan promoted synergy, the latest profit-enhancing trend in an increasingly competitive media market. Synergy meant Kaplan could cross-promote Time Warner's products by launching TV newsmagazines based on collaborative work between CNN and the company's print magazines. One newsmagazine would be ``NewsStand: CNN & Time," which would replace the existing newsmagazine, ``Impact," a show Kaplan thought ``uneven."
1999, and maybe more towards TPB's disposition than mine: Pierce, Scott D. (1999-04-30). "Olsen twins' appeal wanes; ABC is nearly certain to give their sitcom the ax". Deseret News. Retrieved 2022-05-10. The "NewsStand" franchise -- which includes "CNN & Time" on Sundays and Mondays; "CNN & Fortune" on Wednesdays; and "CNN & Entertainment Weekly" on Thursdays ... has failed to attract many viewers ... . About the only time they've even entered the national consciousness was that infamous report -- later retracted -- about how Americans allegedly used nerve gas in Vietnam.
2000, during a similar AOL Time Warner merger: Kuczynski, Alex (May 15, 2000). "'Super-Editor' Spot May Be Created At Post-Merger AOL-Time Warner". The New York Times. p. C-1. Time Warner has never been perceived as particularly well integrated by the business community. And Mr. Levin, the Time Inc. executives said, has not been excessively pleased with the level of synergy within his own company, particularly between Time Inc. and CNN.

--Closeapple (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2007) [1979]. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The book has an entry about CNN Newstand. The book notes of the broadcast history: CNN, 60 minutes, produced 1998–2001, and premiered June 7, 1998. The book notes that the regulars are Jeff Greenfield, Bernard Shaw, Judd Rose, Willow Bay, Stephen Frazier, and Perri Peltz. The book notes: "In a veritable fit of corporate "synergy" Time-Warner Communications, which owned both CNN and a vast publishing empire, introduced this multi-part series built around three of its leading newsmagazines. Originally airing four nights a week, installments were introduced from trendy, high-tech newsstands in various cities. CNN Newsstand: Time focused on hard news stories similar to those featured in Time; CNN Newsstand: Entertainment Weekly covered the hype-filled world of entertainment; and CNN Newsstand: Fortune dealt with the world of business and finance. All of them adopted the tabloid tone so popular on TV newsmagazines in the '90s (Millionaire NBA Deadbeat DADS!" "Spin Doctors at Work!" "Luxury CEO Jets!"). The tendency toward sensationalism got the series into trouble during its first week, as CNN Newsstand: Time aired a story (also published in Time) alleging that the U.S. military had used nerve gas on its own troops behind enemy lines in Vietnam in "Operation Tailwind." When serious doubt was cast on the story, three producers resigned or were fired, correspondent Peter Arnett was suspended (and eventually left the network), and mighty Time-Warner apologized to all concerned. Interspersed with the regular Newsstand telecasts were People magazine celebrity biographies, called People Profiles and billed as "a special presentation of CNN Newsstand."
2. Letofsky, Irv (1999-04-29). "CNN Newsstand: Entertainment Weekly". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 357, no. 29. p. 13. ProQuest 2469228301.
  The article is in a "Cable TV reviews" section of the magazine. The review notes, "The news standards for CNN's "NewsStands" seem to fluctuate, the Tailwind episode aside (or perhaps not aside, if you want to find about it). In the network's Thursday night compact with Time Warner corporate symbiont Entertainment Weekly, the fluctuations can be wild. One piece is a bright, one-over-easy look at Imagine, the greatly successful boutique production house run by Ron Howard and Brian Grazer. But interviewer/co-anchor Willow Bay, while pleasant enough, asks little of substance outside of, gee, you really get along together. They agree that they do."
3. Letofsky, Irv (1999-03-22). "CNN Newsstand: People Profiles". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 357, no. 1. p. 45. EBSCOhost 2469271565.
  The article is in a "Cable TV reviews" section of the magazine. The review notes, "As our print- and tele-magazines love to troll the same celebrity pool, "NewsStand" and its symbiotic sister print weekly People have come up with a 10-Tuesday series of "People Profiles." It begins with an "in-depth profile" of Harrison Ford. It's a comfy hour of his life and times (from exec producer Susan Lester, senior producer Kathy Sulkes and producer Vicki Sufian), even elevated from the usual People drool like its cover of Ford as "The Sexiest Man Alive." ... For these hours, "NewsStand" has picked 10 of its 25 personalities from its "Legends" spread in People's recent 25th anniversary issue. It doesn't say why the other 15 were determined as also-rans."
4. Battaglio, Stephen (1999-07-16). "Read all about it: 'NewsStand' gets new look". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Gale.
  The article notes: "CNN is expected to announce this weekend that it will drop its high-profile newsmagazine series based on Time Inc. titles and fold its stories into a new 10p.m. newscast that will carry the "CNN NewsStand" name. ... Although the original "CNN NewsStand" brought the production values of broadcast network news division programs to CNN, it never caught on with viewers, averaging 300,000-400,000 homes on weeknights at 8 p.m. Several veteran news producers said the primetime schedule was already saturated with newsmagazines and CNN was simply too late to the party."
5. Goodman, Walter (1998-06-20). "Critic's Notebook; TV News Magazines Hard, Medium and Lite". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "CNN Newsstand, the new prime-time cable series, opened on a controversial note last week with allegations that the United States used nerve gas against American defectors during the Vietnam War. The network's chief military analyst, Maj. Gen. Perry Smith, retired, resigned in protest (sleazy journalism he called it) but the report prompted Defense Secretary William S. Cohen to order a fresh inquiry. CNN Newsstand is the overall title for three hourlong weekly collaborations between the cable network and magazines in the Time-Warner empire. On Sundays, Time magazine, which carried the nerve-gas charges, is the partner from print; on Wednesdays, it's Fortune magazine and the beat is business; on Thursdays, it's Entertainment Weekly, and the beat is show business."
6. Carter, Bill (1999-04-19). "CNN Excludes Arnett From War and Future". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "The decision to terminate Mr. Arnett's contract ends the career at CNN of one of the best-known of television correspondents. The move comes nine months after Mr. Arnett played a prominent role in what became an embarrassing debacle for the network, when a much-publicized investigative report for the inaugural edition of CNN's prime-time news magazine CNN Newsstand, blew up in the network's face. The report, entitled Tailwind, charged that a United States military operation in the Vietnam War included the use of the lethal nerve gas sarin. ... In the wake of the retraction, CNN dismissed both producers who put the report together, Jack Smith and April Oliver. Pam Hill, the senior executive producer in charge of Newsstand, resigned."
7. Weinstein, Steve (1998-06-06). "CNN Adds Newsmagazines to the Mix". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "CNN’s “NewsStand,” a collaboration between the Time Warner-owned cable news outlet and three of Time Warner’s print publications--Time, Fortune and Entertainment Weekly--premieres Sunday with promises of meaty journalism that matches the tone, standards and prestige of its three traditional magazine counterparts. ... “I guess to me the question is, does the audience need more examples of good journalism?” said Jeff Greenfield, the former ABC analyst turned CNN star who will co-anchor with Bernard Shaw the Time editions of “NewsStand.”"
8. Bobbin, Jay (1998-06-07). ""CNN NewsStand' brings popular magazines to television". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Under the umbrella title "CNN NewsStand," three programs are being launched by that cable network, each with the name and format of a well-known publication (and each running at 10 p.m.) On Sundays and Mondays, Bernard Shaw and Jeff Greenfield are teamed for "CNN and Time," a revised version of "Impact," the program that previously combined the resources of those two journalistic entities. On Wednesdays, Willow Bay and Stephen Frazier present financial stories on "CNN and Fortune." Then on Thursdays, Bay joins Judd Rose for "CNN and Entertainment Weekly, " combining showbiz features, reviews and investigations."
9. Heldenfels, R.D. (1998-06-05). "CNN to Launch New Magazine 'Newsstand' Cable Network to Join With Time, Fortune and Entertainment Weekly". Akron Beacon Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Beginning Sunday, CNN launches a new series of magazine shows with some familiar names attached. Under the umbrella title of CNN NewsStand, it will present CNN and Time at 10 p.m. Sundays and Mondays, CNN and Fortune at 10 p.m. Wednesdays and CNN and Entertainment Weekly at 10 p.m. Thursdays."
10. Levin, Gary (1998-07-06). "CNN's Kaplan almost quit over 'NewsStand' mistakes". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "The Operaton Tailwind story, which was carried on the June 7 premiere of CNN's newsmagazine and the June 15 edition of Time, said American troops used deadly sarin gas against defectors in Laos. Other heads did roll at CNN. NewsStand senior executive producer Pam Hill resigned, saying "I now believe we were wrong to air the report as we did.""
11. Battaglio, Stephen (1998-06-25). "Nerve Gas Report Strains Venture by 'Time,' CNN". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "The partnership of cable news channel CNN and Time magazine hit its first snag Monday when the news weekly announced that it will further check the veracity of a CNN NewsStand story on the use of nerve gas by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War."
12. McConville, Jim (1998-06-01). "CNN's Busy 'Newsstand'". Electronic Media. Vol. 17, no. 23. EBSCOhost 757830.
  The article notes: "On the eighth day, CNN's "NewsStand" rested. And CNN may need a day off as it moves forward with plans to extend its proposed "NewsStand" newsmagazine franchise to seven nights a week. "NewsStand," the long-expected marriage of Time Warner's CNN and magazine titles from Time Inc.'s vast publication rack, will spawn its first three nightly newsmagazines beginning next week. ... "NewsStand: CNN & Time" and "CNN & Fortune" will typically run three stories per episode; "CNN & Entertainment Weekly" will use a combination of stories, entertainment reviews and editor round tables."
13. Petrozzello, Donna (1998-06-01). "CNN gets into long form". Broadcasting & Cable. Vol. 128, no. 3. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Gale.
  The article notes: "Through a joint venture with the Time Inc-owned magazines Time, Fortune and Entertainment Weekly, CNN is launching its CNN NewsStand franchise beginning Sunday (June 7). CNN U.S. President Rick Kaplan describes the series as an outgrowth of Impact, CNN's Sunday-night news magazine alliance with Time."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CNN NewsStand to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify as there is simultaneous consensus that is isn't currently notable, but that he might be within draftification's six month time table. Keeping it around for draftspace incubation also preserves the history and attribution as well as avoiding starting from scratch. Star Mississippi 14:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian Schwieren[edit]

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

Article doesn't establish claim of notability. Although I can find one article focusing on the player, I don't think there's enough significant coverage.

The player isn't capped internationally and hasn't played professionally so doesn't seem to meet NFOOTY. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Please note that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - meets WP:SPORTCRIT with this. Also was called up to recent national team training camp - but team has not played a match in about a year. With Nations League call-ups in a week or two, will be interesting to see - suggest also apply WP:NORUSH to see what happens. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone needs to be the subject of multiple sources to meet SPORTCRIT. As mentioned in the nomination, I found the one article, but nothing else. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:MarchOfTheGreyhounds, SPORTCRIT (final bullet) says "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject". Whether meeting SPORTCRIT is enough is a different issue - but I don't see how there's any doubt that SPORTCRIT isn't met. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concede I was wrong on this, my apologies. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You missed the second sentence of WP:SPORTCRIT: Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. A single source is enough to prevent a PROD, but not enough to keep an article at WP:AFD if no additional sources can be found. I'm also not convinced the article you provided is WP:SIGCOV; it only has three paragraphs of independent coverage, and those paragraphs include very little information beyond basic statistics. BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete/Draft It is likely that he will be notable in the near future. It's weather or not someone is willing to maintain a draft until then. Please note I am not volunteering. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG and may also fail WP:SPORTCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or draftify - article about non-notable footballer (case of WP:TOOSOON). Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Discarding the "keep/redirect" vote that has no explanation. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rain (EP)[edit]

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

Redirect to band's discography. Non-notable album. Mooonswimmer 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mooonswimmer 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to 40 Below Summer as a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Discarding the "keep/redirect" vote that has no explanation. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Last Dance (40 Below Summer album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mooonswimmer 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to 40 Below Summer as a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mukesh Singh[edit]

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

Does not appear to have made contributions significant enough to meet WP:NARTIST. –Ploni (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and India. Ploni (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marcel J. Melançon[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:SIGCOV, but potentially notable. Can find much about him at all. Been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years. So could he be an emeritus professor by now? scope_creep^Talk 18:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment His work seems to have been cited/critically discussed several times in French GScholar, if not the individual, the book certainly is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: fascinatingly low web footprint. Here's a list of his books (as of 2005): [36]. And did you notice that he's also an artist? [37]. So maybe a WP:GNG pass through Quebec newspapers, if anyone's interested in digging through proquest for them. -- asilvering (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need some book review to pass WP:NAUTHOR or some additional references to show he is notable, for the article. scope_creep^Talk 05:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware. You'll notice I didn't vote keep. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Looking at google scholar it didn't look to me like there were enough citations to meet WP:NPROF. My search didn't find reviews of his books to show WP:NAUTHOR is met. I also didn't see significant independent coverage that meets the GNG. I found several sources listing his works, but they were either from his publisher and/or the university he was teaching.Sandals2 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete. I found one published review including a co-edited volume by the subject among four reviewed books, JSTOR 236496, not enough for WP:AUTHOR. His book on Camus is well-cited for philosophy, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And I didn't find evidence of other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep - although he's only an associate professor, he work on the ethics of testing is very much at the cutting edge of bioethics. I have taught this topic in my AP Biology class. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rolinx process[edit]

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

The Rolinx process seems to be non notable, a search only found references to the company rather than any injection molding process Herravondure (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to IO Interactive. ✗plicit 01:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glacier (game engine)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game, currently relying on a single reliable source. While somewhat in-depth, the MCV article reads like a press release / interview, and is bylined to simply "Staff" rather than an author. Searching for other sources mostly just finds name drops of the sort as "IO's new game uses it's Glacier engine", with no significant in-depth coverage of the engine on it's own. Even these passing mentions have less than two pages of results with WP:VG/S's custom reliable source search. The article has been repeatedly created and redirected, including at Glacier Engine. -- ferret (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: perhaps this could be merged to IO Interactive? The article has only one source that might reach SIGCOV standard, the MCV story that documents that the engine has been licensed. This isn't enough for a standalone article, but with a little pruning the content is relevant to the IOI article and if the licensing is successful, the case for an independent article might grow. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG, although I have no qualm about Glacier Engine being redirected to IO Interactive since it was used for numerous games of theirs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to IO Interactive, the creator of his engine. OceanHok (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with IO Interactive, enough information can be written about this engine to warrant its own subsection named "Technology". Merko (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with IO Interactive per my comment above and Merko. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify so that BOZ can continue to work on it. Star Mississippi 01:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug Kovacs[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:ARTIST. Daily Herald article is a notice about a local event in 2011; the remaining sources are blogs. – Ploni (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Science fiction and fantasy. Ploni (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to Draft if sources are not found to Keep at this time, so that I can work on improving it. BOZ (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way, if it helps, a few reviews to books he worked on were found and added to the article. BOZ (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:ARTIST. The article lacks any reliable secondary sources. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Tfindlay44, if you would like this in draft space to incorporate sourcing such as the one Nfitz identified, I'm happy to provide. You do no need to go through refund. Star Mississippi 02:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin Springett[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Unsourced. – Ploni (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, England, and Canada. Ploni (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Might be able to craft a small article about Springett as an illustrator. Everything else is non-notable, unreferenced and written in a non-neutral style. All music appears to be self-published. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put this page together for Martin Springett and would like to revise it so that it won’t be deleted. I can certainly write about him as an illustrator as suggested. In terms of his music, his recent work is being published by Music Revolution Records https://mrrmusic.com/project/the-gardening-club/. Also The Riddle and the original Gardening Club album were released by Gonzo Music in the UK https://www.gonzomultimedia.co.uk.

I will remove references to his self published music.

I am unsure which parts of the current page are considered to be written “like an advertisement”. Can you please let me know where the inappropriate wording is so I can edit it? Thanks. Tfindlay44 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tfindlay44 There is a considerable amount of biographical information that is entirely unreferenced. I am guessing that you have personal knowledge of this info, rather than that you found this all out in reliable sources. That albums were released is really the least of the task ahead, especially if what you wish to cite is the music company itself. Every fact in the article must come from a reliable, third-party source. I would say that your first step is to identify such sources and add them to the article. That is more important than the wording, which can easily be fixed. Note that any un-referenced information can legitimately be deleted by other editors, so it isn't enough to reference a few bits - it has to be all referenced. Lamona (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay thanks. I'll see what I can do in terms of adding references. 2604:3D08:237E:7730:ADED:332E:BD2F:8E1A (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have re-written the page and inserted references. Is there anything else that I need to do? Tfindlay44 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The references mostly appear to be works he has done, or awards he received. We need references that discuss his work, or awards. @Tfindlay44: Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a good reference that should go a long to proving notability -A 1991 Edmonton Journal article about him. ProQuest 251798614. Find another similar reference about him and you're golden. Nfitz (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for agents of people to post biographies of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not an agent. I am a friend. Are friends not allowed to post biographies? 2604:3D08:237E:7730:514F:BB71:1DED:1080 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to B-cell maturation antigen#As a drug target as a WP:ATD. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALLO-715[edit]

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

The therapy is in clinical trial and that means its an instance of WP:OR. This also gets confirmed as there are only primary sources and academic research papers that cites the therapy and absolutely no secondary references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOR. Cirton (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I'm the initial author of the original article. The assumption that a therapy is in clinical trial and that means its an instance of WP:OR is absolutely, manifestly false. Plenty of drugs that are in clinical trials are written about and discussed extensively. There's no WP:OR involved. It was covered in two of the most reputable journals in science, Blood and Nature. Everything in the wikipedia article derives from those secondary sources, which means it's not WP:OR. I would love to know what in the article is not present in a cited source. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whenever a drug is in clinical trial, it only means that the drug is a product of a research which is not complete yet and its effectiveness is yet to be judged based on informed, calculated trials. This intrinsically means that any drug in clinical trial is a product of original research and such being the case, its pretty understandable that the drug will have almost no secondary sources. But the drug must pass the clinical trial in order to be perceived as notable. Trivial mentions of the drug in some science magazine article can only be cited to prove that the drug exists, not that the drug is notable. Also, reports of the clinical trial is primary source by definition, so your improvements in terms of adding these unfortunately didn't lead to any better as of now. Cirton (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On wiki, OR = a Wikipedia editor made up the contents all by himself. When a reliable source does the original research, then it is not a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. See the definition at the start of the policy: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." When the information comes from reliable sources, it is not a violation of OR. I realize that this is confusing; we should probably consider renaming the policy to something like WP:No original research by Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cirton (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete WP:NOTJUSTYET Exciting new drug, but no significant secondary coverage. See also WP:MEDRS— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Discussed in Blood and Nature... pretty sure that's as good secondary coverage as it is going to get. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  The Blood reference is a primary source, and the Nature reference is, well, more of a news report, though it does have a touch of review in it: quoting some of the FDA panel. I'd consider the Nature ref to be secondary coverage, but weak. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I've added some additional references. There's definitely a non-insignificant amount of commentary on ALLO-715 in the biopharma sphere. A little specific, but outlets such as FierceBiotech reported on it, which is fairly solid stuff in the field. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  "Current state and next-generation CAR-T cells in multiple myeloma" is a review article, which is definitely a secondary source. So is this news article, which reports that one patient in a clinical trial died. It would be good to see some non-biomedical content in this article. Experimental drugs may be interesting for purely medical reasons, but they're also significant business products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete per rsjaffe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or merge to B-cell maturation antigen#As a drug target (where it ought to be mentioned). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rationale for nomination is completely flawed. Being in clinical trial is not Original Research. Academic research papers are not necessarily WP:PRIMARY. Nevertheless, let's evaluate the article the sources in it, and other sources that WP:NEXIST. The article in Nature ([38]) is certainly not WP:PRIMARY, nor WP:OR. It is WP:SIGCOV. This [39] in cancernetwork is certainly neither WP:PRIMARY, nor WP:OR. It is WP:SIGCOV. Here's an article in Fortune [40], that's more independent in-depth coverage from an independent source that takes a financial perspective rather than a medical/scientific point of view. These are enough to establish notability under the general notability guideline; there are more good sources in the article. So, Keep. Jacona (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clinical trials are primary sources. See WP:IDPRIMARY. You need to identify reviews or other reports that are not primary to establish notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, clinical trials are primary sources, but no "being in clinical trials" does not make independent reports on those clinical trials primary. Jacona (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. I was being pedantic because this nomination started with a confused back-and-forth discussion that messed up the distinction between primary sources, original research, and the need for secondary sources for notability. And strewn in was the incorrect idea that being in clinical trials guaranteed notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete - without splitting hairs, citation # 7 is to a secondary source. In any case, I agree with this being too soon for an encyclopedia. I would not object to the proposed merger. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOWERN[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This looks like a classic case of WP:NEOLOGISM in my searching, and there's a pretty decent bar for scientific jargon acronyms getting an article. KoA (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

climate interestingly makes no mention of climatic factors, and this is clearly an omission in Wikipedia. However most sources do not agree on this list, some sources do not even agree on the number or divisions amongst factors, and no sources that I found agreed to the extent of six factors with these particular spellings in this order yielding this initialism at hand. It's not a widespread or accepted terminology, and didn't turn up in any of the books on physical geography, from the 19th to the 21st century, that I just read to find out what they gave as climatic factors. Yes, this highlights a basic omission in our climate article. But it does not actually fix it, and it isn't something that is generally agreed-upon in its own right. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- high pageviews, and importance in curriculum in Canada seems to be highly relevant for educational users of the encyclopedia. It should be treated more like a disambiguation page, rather than a content page, Sadads (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher McCreery[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a historian and writer, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim here is essentially that he exists as a person who has written stuff and been appointed to boards and committees, none of which is an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage in media about that work -- but literally across the board, every single footnote here is to content self-published by organizations he's been directly affiliated with, which are not notability-building sources.
And even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have googled, I found stuff written by him (which does not help to establish notability), and I found stuff which namechecked his existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about governors-general or Order of Canada recipients (which does not help to establish notability) -- but in terms of the type of coverage that does help to establish notability, namely coverage in which he is the subject that other people are writing or talking about, I found virtually nothing but a couple of stray hits in his own hometown media, which is not enough.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep They don't give you that many fellowships without something going on with your life. He's mentioned here in a discussion about his books:[41] and [42], he's discussed in this journal article here [43] and about 3 or 4 other journal discussions of his "hisorical interpretation" of things, his biography here: [44] and he was awarded the Order of Nova Scotia here: [45]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've misinterpreted most of those sources.

He's the author of both of the books you linked, not a subject of discussion in books by other people, so they aren't support for his notability — you don't make a writer notable by sourcing his books to themselves as proof that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing his books to third party critical analysis of the books by other people and/or independent verification that he won or was nominated for major literary awards for them.

The "biography" is a staff profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and thus isn't support for his notability as it isn't independent coverage.

And he wasn't awarded the Order of Nova Scotia, he was a staffer in the administrative office of the Order of Nova Scotia, so that's also a staff directory rather than a notability-assisting source.

The journal article is fine, but one of those isn't enough to pass WP:GNG all by itself if all of the other sourcing is still primary — a person needs a lot more than just one piece of media coverage to get over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His work is also discussed here:https://muse.jhu.edu/article/806484/summary, here: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/539895, here in a medical journal: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/179/10/1041.short, here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23594711, "expert advisor" to the government here: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA351947375&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00249262&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Ebef22580. with many more. He's cited here in a French article: [46]. The medical journal in particular is a neutral review of one of his works on the St. John's Ambulance corps. He's more than notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being cited as a provider of soundbite in pieces where he is not himself the subject of the piece does not aid in establishing notability either, so most of those still don't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This https://www.proquest.com/openview/081998d92bb83ebacdcc1fb4c19a550c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=48438 discusses his work for a good 2-3 paragraphs and the CMAJ is a review of his book, those and the other "soundbites" as you call them add up to notability, do they not? For sure he's passed WP:AUTHOR criteria 3b with at least 2 critical reviews (the CMAJ and the proquest one I just showed for at least 3 paragraphs, the free view won't let me see more), and criteria 4 with more than enough recognition based on his body of work, with the ample amount of honorifics after his name as proof. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability can only be established by sources in which he's the subject being discussed by other people, and never by sources in which he's a speaker discussing other things. And even for the few sources you've profferred that do meet that standard, it takes more than just two of those to pass it. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This person has one book that is held in more than 700 Worldcat libraries. Others are in the 2-digits. Other than that, based on Google Scholar he falls short of NPROF even though at least one book comes out of a university press. I don't think he will meet NAUTH because he writes on very narrow academic topics. I find articles BY him in Ebscohost, and the occasional book review (e.g. Treble, P 2011, ‘Canadian Symbols of Authority: Maces, Chains and Rods of Office’, Maclean’s, vol. 124, no. 36, p. 74). I think the best way to honor this person would be to use his works as references in articles about his topics, generally the history of Canada and the whole royal history. Note, also, that although he received various "Jubilee" medals, the one I looked up was given to 46,000 people. If someone versed in UK honors can show that he is significant, I would like to hear that. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Nwhyte (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I have problems both with the depth of coverage - WP:SIGCOV - and the quality of the sources WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nomination, lack of secondary sources, WP:SIGCOV. Paradox society 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa. RL0919 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timothy Rezelman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS. Also no Google News results. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and South Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG. We have decided that not all Olympians are default notable, we should delete articles on clearly non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could not find anything significant, so Redirect to Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa Jacona (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa. RL0919 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Devon Card[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and South Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I find it hard to believe there's ZERO coverage on this guy with him being a 2020 Olympian, I'm struggling to find anything, so redirect to Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete we made the decision that non-medaling Olympains are not notable for the Olympics, and there is nothing else to suggest notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find anything worth mentioning, so Redirect to Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa Jacona (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the sourcing mentioned in the discussion is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luke Gadsdon[edit]

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

non-notable Olympian. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. Only sources I found were passing mentions of qualifying for the Olympics but nothing that indicates any sort of notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG based on [47], [48] and [49]. This would pass GNG as its more than a trivial mention [50] and [51] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do just want to point out you have posted the same article twice just on two different websites. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Sportsfan 1234. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's coxless four#Rowers per team: The articles listed above in my view are all WP:1E which is the 2020 Summer Olympics. Proposing a redirect into the event he participated in as WP:ATD. TartarTorte 19:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Ontario. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the sources found, above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete there is not a breath of sources to overcome one event for living people coverage issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Won a gold medal at the Canada Games [52],[53], which is probably enough itself, and garnered a lot of WP:SIGCOV, but throw in the articles provided by Sportsfan 1234. That's enough on it's own to meet WP:GNG as well, so I'm going to say it's WP:N * 2. Jacona (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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