< May 08	May 10 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idol in Action[edit]

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

The entire article is sourced by YouTube channels in violation of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:COPYVIO. No evidence of WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Television. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This article currently meets speedy criteria deletion G12, as it is a blatant copyright infringement and there is no content at all to save if all copyright violations were removed. I've requested the CSD. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As I was informed of policy I misunderstood/misinterpreted, I'm changing my vote to a regular delete as it actually doesn't meet CSD criterium G12. I am still in favor of regular deletion of the article, as it's clearly a low-quality article and all references would have to be removed (as they're almost certainly copyright violations), combined with the little notability making it impossible, in my mind, to change the references out with notable, independent and reputable sources. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amadeus1999: What is the source of this alleged copyright violation? Earwig offers no potential sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Literally all of the References section. It only links to YouTube videos, most of which belong to channels where content is almost certainly copyrighted under licenses not compatible with Wikipedia, as is the default for YouTube creators. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amadeus1999: That has nothing to do with the copyright status of this article, unless one or more of those external links is itself a copyright violation, as the text is not a copyright violation — you can just remove all the references if they are indeed to copyright-infringing videos. However, using only YouTube references is a concern since these are all primary sources and YouTube is not a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: I get that, but if I remove all references since they'd be copyright violations, the entire article would be unsourced which would still get it in a CSD guideline? Unless I'm mistaken about that..? Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 14:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer is no, there is no "CSD because there are no references". Primefac (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, I'm sorry then. I will change my !vote appropriately. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this one was a well written article with some issue of promotional language but the problem comes to the sourcing as it lacks independent, reliable sources backing the information written. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Cirton (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to improve the articles sourcing using any of the sources indicated in this discussion if needed. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch Out Loud[edit]

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

According to a search of sources, the topic has not received widespread coverage other than its cancellation. Poor notability per WP:GNG and mostly sourced from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is significant coverage, even if from primary sources. There's various sources and most notability is probably derived from Filipino users which, if they speak or type Filipino, may not show up on a source search. It has been viewed 3,831 times in the past 30 days, with 383 revisions over a time period of two years from 144 separate editors. This all creates the impression to me that this subject may well be more notable than assumed by nominator. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please be careful because your comment implies that searches/revisions may indicate the topic is notable however WP:PVS advises against that and explicitly says "Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability.". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is quickly and easily found, here's some of the top entries. Plenty more to be had. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5]. Please see WP:NEXIST; just because sources aren't in the article, doesn't mean the article is not notable. If the article is poorly sourced, fix it, don't bring it to deletion. Deletion is not cleanup. Jacona (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTV with sources presented by Jacona. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). It does not appear any further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Palmieri (Bickertonite)[edit]

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

Non-notable religious leader. Of the three sources given, one is from a non-independent source, the other isn't significant coverage, and the third is a family written obituary. No other SIGCOV found. schetm (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Pennsylvania. schetm (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I found another short article.[6]--Jahaza (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My Dad![edit]

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

A search of news sources fails to establish notability for television programmes or more generally WP:GNG. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm incapable of searching for Tagalog sources, but among English sources, I found a few that are directly about the series. I don't know the context so I don't know if they should be considered reliable sources or not. But if they do, they do focus clearly on the show: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I'm inclined to think at least 2-3 of them are probably reliable based off context, so I will say for now a tentative keep. matt91486 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Matt says, not all of the sources found are reliable, but I would say at least 3 of them are, so sufficient to show notability, in lieu of demonstration otherwise. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These satisfied me as to WP:SIGCOV. [13], [14],[15], so this meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTV with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Them (TV pilot)[edit]

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

Article about a television pilot that did not advance to series, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This is sourced to one single (deadlinked) production announcement in one magazine and a blog, which is not enough coverage to get it over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Failon at DJ Chacha sa Radyo5[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and confusing with little attention to WP:GNG. It seems to be a timeline of the show's history with little extensive or independent coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fit for Life (TV series)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited just because the host/subject of the tv show is notable. There is a lack of general coverage which fails to establish notability beyond existence. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFT Now[edit]

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

Most of this looks like bought publicity. There's a small bit of collateral coverage in serious newspapers, but overall it does not appear to amount to WP:SIGCOV. The company is still quite young, and so the lack of coverage is in line with this. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, looks like passing mentions, some unreliable as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with nom but appreciate the feedback. None of the publicity is bought and Christie's co-sign is very significant in the art world. Removed the TIME quote and Miami Magazine section to make it more neutral. Open to adding more sources and other suggestions for improving the entry. ContentCandy (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it does not meet WP:NCORP. There are mentions in reliable sources, but fail at independent and significant coverage. MarioGom (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Kaliveer[edit]

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

It may be a transliteration issue or something else, but I can't find any sources for this Durgāradeshadipati Baba Kaliveer (also when looking separately, "Durgāradeshadipati" "Baba Kaliveer"). The online sources in the article are either unreliable (TheReaderApp) or don't mention this at all (sacred texts.com vedabase.io, and the article as written is very confusing to find out what it is actually about (it reads like some religious story written here as truth), so even if verified would need a complete overhaul to become encyclopedic. But without verification we shouldn't have an article of course. Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. Fram (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note; I have reinstated the AfD tag repeatedly at the article, and tried explaining to the editor that removing the tag isn't allowed (something which they already did at other AfDs and were warned about by others). This didn't help, but I leave it to others (or a bot) to readd the tag and educate the editor involved. Fram (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note page moved to Baba Kaliveer, and Durgāradeshadipati Baba Kaliveer is now a redirect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajja100 has a long history of disruptive editing. Their recent attempt to blank this discussion moved me to drop a 72 hr block. No comment or opinion on the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 01:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Dzelatovic[edit]

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

non notable bodyguard/actor, previously deleted as a7/spam, nothing has changed. Working for notable individuals does not make one notable themselves and he is not exception. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Serbia, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone famous enough if he has the huge fan base https://www.instagram.com/ajkulauk/ (we are talking according to Serbian statistics) and I put links from certain medias to also prove his nobility? Немања 93 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of followers and views are always a poor measure of notability. Anyone can have millions of followers because anyone can create an account and anyone can buy followers. It does not translate to notability because it isn't published in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to get any data from the time when he was a ice hockey player because there is not much statistics. But that is an important accomplishment that deserves an article. Beside everything already mentioned he also does a lot of charity, for which I have links that could be included. Would that mean enough for his article to exist? Немања 93 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Waste[edit]

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

Non-notable show per WP:NTV. Sources are all primary or unreliable, and I could find none better Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The nominator was already asked on their talk page to slow down with all the nominations. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked not to nominate 300 articles for PROD in a day again. Which has literally nothing to do with this AFD or any of the other AFDs I've made this week. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Cooks, Leda (2018). "What is (not) Food? The Construction of Food Waste as a Social Problem". In Lebesco, Kathleen; Naccarato, Peter (eds.). The Bloomsbury Handbook of Food and Popular Culture. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 335. ISBN 978-1-4742-9624-3. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The book notes: "Food Network's "The Big Waste" (first broadcast in 2012) addressed the need for greater awareness by exposing the types of food that are typically thrown away and helping us to reshape what we consider waste and how we might repurpose excess. The documentary follows Food Network chefs and their experiences "in the field" from sourcing food to eating food. Emphasis was put on the star chefs' personal learning experiences through this journey, indicating that waste is a widespread problem but the intricacies of our food waste system are a well-kept secret. The show also focused heavily on the surprise the chefs experience when noting the quality of many of the ingredients that are about to be or have been thrown away (deemed unfit for use) and explained that the issue in food waste lies not only in our excess purchasing of food, but in our perception of what is acceptable or unacceptable to eat. Still, in this show and across the media studied, the lack of attention to the consequences of allowing current levels of production, distribution, and consumption in developed countries to continue, as well as lack of awareness about the benefits to our environment and society of broadening our diet to include unused food, are remarkable."
2. Mowry, Erin (2015-07-08). "Part II: The Big Waste". CULTURS. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  From https://www.cultursmag.com/about-culturs/: "Founded: by in 2014, CULTURS.guru represents the first stage of impending launch of the Institute for Global Culture Research proposed to be housed in the Journalism Department of Colorado State University in 2016. Partnered: CULTURS.guru is partnered with the Department of Journalism at Colorado State University, including original content published by students in Class Workshop “Mobilizing Global Culture,” along with articles by celebrated experts from around the globe."
  The article notes: "In 2012, The Food Network tried to tackle this issue. Top Chefs teamed up and created the special show called “The Big Waste”. In this TV special, the chefs were divided up in to two culinary teams and had exactly 48 hours to create a multi course gourmet meal that was A) worthy of their reputations and B) could only use food that was on it’s way to the garbage. ... These chefs had to visit food processors and wholesalers that willingly gave them their wasted food. This included overstock, returned, blemished, damaged and other unwanted produce. This series was not only a cook off but also a learning experience."
3. "BioCycle World. Food Network Takes On Waste". BioCycle. Vol. 53, no. 2. 2012-02-27. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "In the Food Network's January 15 segment "The Big Waste," first-class chefs Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell and Alex Guarnaschelli tackled the problem of waste in the food industry. Divided into two teams, with only 48 hours on the clock, the chefs were challenged to create a multicourse gourmet banquet worthy of their great reputations, but with a big twist - they could only use food that is on its way to the trash."
4. Gay, Kathlyn (2017). Anne Burrell. New York: Enslow Publishing. pp. 55–56. ISBN 978-0-7660-7752-2. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The book notes: "In one Food Network special, the behind-the-scense action was in full view. Called The Big Waste, four chefs—Anne Burrell, Bobby Flay, Alex Guarnaschelli, and Michael Symon—were followed by camera people as they collected throw-away foods from markets, a bakery, farms, butchers, and even dumpsters. An expert tested everything to be sure it was safe. Anne and Alex collected food from a bakery, chickens with broken wings, eggs, meats, and produce. The show would highlight how much food is wasted in the United States—about 40 percent of the food produced every year, according to the federal government. ... The challenge for the chefs was to create a gourmet banquet using only throw-away foods. Food Network chefs rose to the challenge, and those who ate the food declared it delicious. The Big Waste special had little or no effect on food shows that followed. On current Food Network shows, there are no fruits with brown spots, wilted lettuce, misshapen carrots, chickens with broken wings, or dented canned goods."
5. Smith, Andrew F. (2020). "The Perfect Storm: A history of food waste". In Reynolds, Christian; Soma, Tammara; Spring, Charlotte; Lazell, Jordon (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Food Waste. London: Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-138-61586-1. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The book notes: "In January 2012, The Food Network hosted a special, The Big Waste, that brought together four top chefs (Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell, and Alex Guarnaschelli) to explore the potential of America's burgeoning food waste. The chefs collected discarded food from various sources and then prepared meals using only those ingredients. The program included discussions of waste in food preparation and distribution, a dumpster-diving session behind a supermarket, and a look at waste on the farm."
6. Smith, Andrew F. (2020). Why Waste Food?. London: Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78914-345-4. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In America, the Food Network's The Big Waste featured four chefs – Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell and Alex Guarnaschelli. They were split into two teams and given 48 hours to create a multi-course banquet using only food that was on its way to the bin."
7. Bellemare, Mrac; Çakir, Metin; Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa; Novak, Lindsay; Rudi, Jeta (2017-11-29). "Is "food waste" really wasted food?". Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In 2012, the Food Network premiered The Big Waste. The show featured world-renowned chefs Bobby Flay, Michael Symon, Anne Burrell, and Alex Guarnaschelli competing in pairs to prepare a gourmet banquet meal. The twist? They could only use food intended for the landfill. The episode drew attention to the issue of food waste."
8. Melvin, Lindsay (2012-03-26). "Save your food — and budget". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "“The Big Waste,” on the Food Network, recently showed celebrity chefs creating dishes out of food typically destined for the trash. Days after it aired, viewers were still commenting online about the shocking details of what doesn’t make it to our plates in America."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Big Waste to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As always, good work. Could you please add these to the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Cunard's excellent assessment of sources I am satisfied notability guideline is met. Such-change47 (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found. @TenPoundHammer:, you indicate you agree they are "excellent work" - does that constitute an AfD withdrawal? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kids Baking Championship. is there such thing as a weak merge? It does not appear that any input is forthcoming and there is no dissension. Star Mississippi 01:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Halloween Baking Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable show. Current sources are all WP:PRIMARY and I could find no secondary coverage at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The nominator was already asked on their talk page to slow down with all the nominations. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBQ Blitz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Hart Food, @Liz: did not say a word to me about AFDs, just PROD. She just didn't want me to flood the prod queue. As of right now I only have about a dozen or so television AFDs open, which is far below the 300-some television based PRODs I made the other day. Furthermore, the other two AFDs I linked show that others agree with my rationale to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to TenPoundHammer was about the extraordinary number of articles PROD'd on one day because there are only two admins who regularly patrol the daily PROD list and we need to inspect each article to ensure the article is eligible for a PROD. Articles sent to AFD are typically reviewed by editors more closely than articles that are PROD'd. There are also quite a few administrators I see closing AFD discussions so I'm less concerned about overloading their workloads. I'm going to relist this discussion to see if this discussion can be reviewed by additional editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kids Baking Championship. -- Mike 🗩 17:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death to the Supermodels[edit]

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

Very thin on sources. Two of them only mention that the film was shot in Costa Rica and say nothing else. The two reviews cited are from websites that do not seem to be reliable. Prod contested due to reviews Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DVD Talk is considered a reliable source, it has a full staff and is a major critic at Rotten Tomatoes, but more rs is needed. Was the Hollywood Reporter piece a review? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't verify the veracity of the Hollywood Reporter review since Google Books doesn't give a preview. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Turns out the Hollywood Reporter source is just a directory listing and not an actual review. I found a direct copy of it and posted below. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Review at DVDTalk (which has repeatedly been discussed on Wikipedia forums and was determined to be a reliable source). Also, the HR review. Two reviews, passes WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Reporter clipping is not a review, but rather a directory listing. You can read the entirety of it here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, more rs needed then Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack actual reviews of other GNG passing sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are reviews for the film that appear in DVD Talk found here; Film Critics United here; and Impulse Gamer here. While weak, that does meet WP:NFILM if you consider the sources RS. --Kbabej (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is intentionally somewhat of low bar for inclusion, and WP:NFILM raises that bar higher. The reviews provided by Kbabej above provides enough to clear both, though. -2pou (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Milekić[edit]

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

This stub contains no references, nor does it show any information that demonstrates the importance of its subject. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am concerned by the nom's comment that this article "contains no references"; partly because it has 2 external links, and partly because of the requirements of WP:BEFORE. However, I cannot find any SIGCOV searching in either English or Serbian. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Ortizesp. Giant Snowman 18:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete external links to sports databases are not referneces.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. See these that pulled up from BEFORE: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, seems to have been part of a legal controversy in Poland.@GiantSnowman:. Honestly, very sloppy nomination, and poor BEFORE work done.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources 1 and 2 are the same and are Polish FA press releases quoted in their entirety. They provide no significant coverage. 3 doesn't provide sigcov and neither do 4 and 5. Sources 6 and 7 are the same. They appear to be a copy and paste from Crazy about Football a blog of unknown reliability. Stal Mielec's website is not independent of Milekić as he played for them. Dougal18 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all comments above. As a general suggestion: please, always check for sources before opening an AfD nomination (and feel free to improve the article accordingly if you find them, of course). --Angelo (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any sources, but that was perhaps because I use a diff browser. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The earlier draft has also been history merged into this version. – Joe (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam at the 2021 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

Vietnam at the 2021 Southeast Asian Games

Unreferenced, and so not verifiable. A copy of this article was already created in article space once, and moved to draft space by User:DarkGlow, who noted correctly that it was unsourced, and should be incubated in draft space. Instead, a copy has been created in article space, still without references, which was tendentious. This copy should be deleted and the draft left for addition of sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Vietnam. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article is unfit to remain in the mainspace and should be worked on in the draft I moved it to. I recommend salting to the admin if the page is deleted to prevent this. – DarkGlow • 22:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @DarkGlow and Robert McClenon:. I will remove this afd tag and add the CSD tag of A7 as it is a quick process to delete this page as this topic is notable and there is draft article for this to improve. If you guys support me to do. Fade258 (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Fade258 - A7 doesn't apply to sports articles. Do not remove the AFD tag. It says not to remove it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Robert McClenon, I will consider your comment. Fade258 (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more references now and this article would be actively worked on as the event is ongoing. I think it can be worked on in mainspace rather than as a draft. Simeon (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is being improved in mainspace with event results and references. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event ongoing. It's a common article for multinational sports event, don't see why the need to revert this to draft. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 15:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep need to improve instead. The article has some source now Hhkohh (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ghost[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. He won a few awards, but they don't appear to be major. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability because awards does not just indiscriminately attach to every single award that exists in the world — it attaches to major national awards (Grammys, Junos, Polaris, Mercury Prize, etc.) that get media coverage, and not to regional or small-fry awards that have to be primary sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself because media coverage about the award presentation is nonexistent. (That is, an award has to itself pass GNG on coverage of the award before it can become notable enough to bestow notability on its winners.) But the awards listed here are the latter, not the former — and the article says absolutely nothing else about him that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of a clear WP:GNG pass on the sourcing either, but the sourcing is junk across the board with not even one properly reliable or GNG-worthy footnote in the bunch. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Rignol[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate (never elected) for French external constituencies. Does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:POL. Article is created by an SPA. Whiteguru (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, France, and United States of America. Whiteguru (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable unelected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability can be found, does not meet GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus as to whether the sources represent significant coverage, but nor is there a consensus to delete Star Mississippi 01:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo (footballer, born June 1976)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment English sources are limited to wikipedia mirrors and stats sites. Source search would need to be done on South Korean and Brazilian-Portuguese web search engines. Govvy (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ricardo builded his main career at K League career in South Korea. There is significant coverage in South Korean press. Press coverage about Ricardo, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only trivial coverage as far as I can see: (1), (2), (3), (4), and lots of passing mentions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo played in K League during 2000-2006. During 2000-2006, Internet news media was still in its infancy. It's natural that Ricardo don't have significant coverage in internet news media.

There is coverage, 1, 2, focused on ricardo. I think that you want it like this. In my opinion, There were many paper coverage, focus on Ricardo during 2000-2006. But many coverage are not converted to the coverage on internet news media. In conclusion, Ricardo is old football player. Please don't judge by the same standard.Footwiks (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate isn't working well on those sources. Per WP:RSUE, can you provide translated quotes demonstrating significant coverage within those sources? BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply

Source 1, Newspaper article by Kyunghyang Shinmun - South Korean major newspaper

If Ricardo is Korean… ’(2001.07.26 19:46)

From offense to defense, they roam the ground flashing in the east and flashing in the west. Wherever he is, he is Unbelievable flexibility and sophisticated technique for a height of 1m89.

Perhaps Hiddink, the national team manager, had quite a taste. I wondered how good it would be if I was Korean.

Anyang LG's Brazilian mercenary Ricardo (25) is an all-around midfielder with a sense of balance that Hiddink prefers.

If the balance seems to be broken in either attack or defense, it will suddenly appear and balance. Lately, I've been hearing goosebumps.

He is already leading the team in scoring with 4 goals in the regular league, including the winning goal of Cheon-geum in the match against Samsung in Suwon on the 25th, which was a decisive step in Anyang's competition for leadership.

The manager Cho kwangrae made a new attempt at Suwon Samsung. He, who had previously been used as a defensive midfielder, was placed forward as an attacking midfielder with an emphasis on offense. Riccardo's performance exceeded the assistant manager's expectations. Ricardo, who played as a sluggish striker in Brazil, made several decisive scenes with bold and fast forward dribbling and elaborate passing, becoming the starting point of the attack.

Source 2, TV News by Seoul Broadcasting System - South Korean major television and radio broadcasters

News is about Ricardo's unique goal celebration and his interview.

Ricardo said: The Korean players' goal celebrations are almost the same, but I also introduce interesting Brazilian culture such as the samba dance."

Footwiks (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Footwiks: If you want to save the article, perhaps you need to expand it while you're finding sources. Govvy (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is significant coverage out there, as shown by the sources located by Footwiks. Giant Snowman 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've searched online Portuguese-language sources for this footballer, and I can't find any SIGCOV. However, it's possible that we can only find that in Korean-language sources because his Brazilian footballing career appears to be non-notable. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are common case, For example, Adilson dos santos is very notalble football player at K League in South Korea, But his Portuguese Wikipedia article was deleted due to notibility. [16] TtThere are so so so many Brazilian expatriate footballers. Non-notability in Brazil doesn't matter.Footwiks (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, would be useful for one of the two keep voters to outline their understanding of the two sources presented, as they both seem very confident they satisfy GNG, which is odd in itself given that firstly, three sources are normally required and secondly and more importantly, they both seem very brief comprising a few sentences each which undermines the strength of the keep arguments presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV - the two sources provided by Footwiks do not appear to be based on Google Translate, and given that no editor has been willing to provide a better translation per WP:RSUE I cannot assume they are. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean @BilledMammal: that they are not based on Google Translate? Both translate for me (right-click translate in Google Chrome). WP:SPORTSCRIT is met with the first (which is already in the article as reference 2). The second is just a mention. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the 2001 reference that Footwiks added to the article after the AFD started meets GNG. As does the other reference that they'd added to the article in 2014 - but the link was broken, so I've pointed to the archived version. Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This was a very interesting discussion and something of a case study in the ongoing, wider discussions about the notability of sportspeople in relation to the general notability guideline. We started with a bare assertion that the subject is not notable, which was challenged, followed by a bare assertion that there must be sources, which was also challenged. BilledMammal then presented a detailed analysis of the level of coverage in the available sources, which for a time seemed to shift the consensus towards deletion. Yet at the same time, other editors showed it was possible to significantly expand the article based on these "insignificant" sources, though not everyone considered this sufficient to keep it. More sources, from more difficult-to-access print media, were presented as the discussion progressed, (e.g. in the final comment by Nfitz), somewhat undercutting Billed's source analysis and the !votes based on it.

What we end with, after a well-attended discussion, is no consensus to delete the article and, following long-standing convention at AfD, that means we're keeping it for now. But it's a productive lack of consensus: the implicit question here is whether it is possible for a subject to fail the GNG but still be notable? That is, notable in the most basic sense that we can write a stand-alone article on it that meets our core content policies and doesn't turn us into an indiscriminate collection of information. We have SNGs that recognise that it is possible to assemble encyclopaedic articles from many brief mentions—i.e. WP:NPROF—could this be the basis of a new consensus on the notability of footballers and other sportspeople? – Joe (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Green (footballer)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Joeykai (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - speedy keep I don't get this nomination, this guy is mentioned in multiple books from the different clubs he played for. Clearly no interest in WP:BEFORE. Govvy (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you could point to any of these books, it would be great help. I'm not finding much on him other than trivial mentions on Newspapers.com, the British Newspaper Archive or Google/Google Books. Alvaldi (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi: Come on now, books like Swindon Town: The Register 1895-2015: An A-Z of Every First Team Player or QPR Player by Player, the list will just go on. He played for top clubs, there will be mentions in multiple books and if one bothers going to looking for those sources they will find enough on him. WP:OFFLINESOURCES exist. It really saddens me these nominations are happening. This whole mindset of a football player is not notable because his article is a simple stub article is a joke. The whole reason for WP:NFOOTBALL was to point to the fact that a professional league player, will have that coverage and they do. If it was a very small amount of games, and it was only one league club. That notability is very low in essence, but this nomination in against a league player stub article for a player who has played way over 100 league games. There will be a lot of coverage there for that amount, that's a lot of information to digest, from signing, to debut, to first goal for that club. That's why I find this particular nomination an absolute joke. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't likely to be useful sources; if a book covers ever person who played for Swindon Town, then the coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability. I also suspect the entry for players like this will be brief and not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful sources?? Each book is a resource for people to learn about players of football clubs, nearly all football league clubs have a book on their players compiled and written by someone. Each time a player plays for a club, every game, this almanac data in a book, I don't understand why you say it's not useful information. BilledMammal, if you're going down this route, this is going to be extremely dangerous for you, you're already making plenty of enemies of the football project, but your ability to no process information here is not helpful. You haven't provided evidence, you are negating what is true. When all you provide is wikipedia policy just turns you into a wiki-monkey with not much else to do. So please, unless your able to be constructive, don't bother providing negated theory. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Not useful for determining notability. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Nothing says that book sources covering all of a team's players can't contribute to GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy Just so we are on the same page, I'm not hellbent on deleting this or any other athletes article (I've saved quite a few the last few weeks by finding sources) and my question above was not some thinly disguised attempt to imply that there where no books. I also do not agree with BilledMammal that coverage in those books are necessarily routine. If there is significant coverage on him in these books, I believe they go towards GNG. The harsh truth is that these nominations are happening because the mass-creation of un-sourcable non-notable footballers (one-game-wonders and such) in the past have pissed off to many people so now we are in this hole with the strong possability of those maybe-notable players being dragged down into it. So we can continue to display are displeasure with it or find sources for these articles and maybe build up a case where we can demonstrate that players of this stature actually get significant coverage. I'd rather like to do the later. Now, these books you mentioned might have something so I will check if someone in the Wikiproject_Football has access to them and check if there is significant coverage on him there. Alvaldi (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. Giant Snowman 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable career but obviously, some additional sources wouldn't hurt. Eagleash (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see source assessment table. I am unable to access two sources; if editors believe that either are WP:SIGCOV, can they please provide quotes demonstrating this?

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://grecianarchive.exeter.ac.uk/items/show/1938	Founded and supported by the Exeter City Football Club Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City		Transfer information, goal count, and game count only - nothing beyond statistics. Coverage is also routine, as the source intends to document all Exeter players	✘ No
https://www.enfa.co.uk/		?	? Source behind a paywall. Probably not, as their FAQ page describes themselves as a database.	? Unknown
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1900.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1901.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1902.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://www.lfchistory.net/Players/Player/Profile/643	Official statistics site of Liverpool		Minimal information beyond statistics	✘ No
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1903.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1905.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1906.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000377/19060502/098/0004			?	? Unknown
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1908.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://fchd.info/lghist/fl1909.htm		? Self published by Richard Rundle	Statistics only database	✘ No
https://grecianarchive.exeter.ac.uk/items/show/1662	Founded and supported by the Exeter City Football Club Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City		Exeter statistics only database	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per expansion by Mattythewhite. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mattythewhite's additions do not appear to demonstrate WP:GNG. Can editors who believe that they do list the sources they believe contribute to that?

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://playupliverpool.com/1883/11/25/thomas-green-tommy-green-playupliverpool-com/	?	?	Statistics only	✘ No
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/Results.asp?Season=1903-1904		?	Statistics only	✘ No
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/MatchCentre.asp?MatchID=19040201		?	Match positions only	✘ No
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/MatchCentre.asp?MatchID=19040202		?	Match positions only	✘ No
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/Person.asp?PersonID=GREENTOM		?	Statistics only	✘ No
http://www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk/PlayingRecord.asp?PersonID=GREENTOM&Season=1903-1904		?	Statistics only	✘ No
Non-League Football Tables 1889–2017			? Probably not, as it is a book of football tables	? Unknown
http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/englancacombhist.html		?	Statistics only	✘ No
http://gogogocounty.org/players/G/GreenTom.html		?	Primarily statistics, no WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
http://gogogocounty.org/seasons/190405/190405Fdetails.html		?	Statistics only	✘ No
Exeter City: A Complete Record 1904–1990			? Unlikely, based on the size of the book, its scope, and what it is used as a reference for. It is also a source that attempt to cover everyone within a group, and so do not contribute to notability as they are routine coverage for that group.	? Unknown
Non-League Football Tables 1889–2017			? Probably not, as it is a book of football tables	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @BilledMammal: I don't know why you said https://www.lfchistory.net is not independent with, "Official statistics site of Liverpool". At the bottom of the website it clearly says "This is an independent website not owned by Liverpool Football Club". Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The about page states What began as a hobby in 2002 has evolved into something much more than that proving a valuable resource to Liverpool Football Club culminating in an agreement with the club in 2009 effectively making LFChistory.net‘s stats the official stats of the club, a fact that Arnie and Gudmundur are incredibly proud of. But even if it was independent, it is clearly not WP:SIGCOV and does not contribute to WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a useable resource, I have nothing against the website, I agree it's not SIGCOV, but it can contribute to general coverage. You can pass an article on GNG without SIGCOV if there is enough general coverage, that is part of notability. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's usable for the article, but it doesn't contribute to GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You cannot pass GNG without SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list the sources that you believe contribute to passing GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per source table, coverage is plainly routine. That's not enough for WP:GNG. agtx 17:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources". Coverage appears primarily to be routine mentions in lengthy lists. Also note that threatening and being abusive towards editors with a different view, as seen above, is wholly unacceptable behaviour at AfD or indeed anywhere on the project. AusLondonder (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping this article - the addition of sources added on 2 May 2022 would probably be enough for that even though I don't have any access to those subscription references. If the article was not expanded and I see it as it was back in April, I would have supported to delete it for being far too short. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Delete The article itself is pretty well written, but per WP:GNG and the source analysis above, none of the references, literally zero, meet the "significant coverage" standard. Near as I can tell, there's not so much as a paragraph written about this guy in a single reliable, independent source, what is cobbled together here is more text than exists in any other source; literally all anyone has found is entries in a statistical database; that's not sufficient to pass GNG. It's a noble effort to write a decent article, and I hate having to do it, but I must concur that there is not enough out there to pass the basic standards for having a stand-alone article about this player. --Jayron 32 17:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now much improved with much more info about the player's past and history. unfortunately, due to when he played, we're not going to get in-depth coverage of the individual and I think this should be taken into consideration, re WP:GNG. NapHit (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails significant coverage requirement per WP:GNG Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 15:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources being discussed here are not significant enough, but the coverage now in the article is more than for many current footballers, articles recently kept at AFD, and articles created by editors who have supported deletion. A865 (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fail to see how content you admit to be lacking in significant (reliable) sources would be a criterium for Keep, as it goes quite literally against the policies for WP:GNG and WP:BLP Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The article has been improved, with more sources, but editors are still assessing notability based on the source analysis from an earlier version. A865 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been significant efforts to critique the sources provided in the article. These seem to indicate a lot of statistical sources but only a few which could be significant enough for GNG. Needs more discussion on the keep side of things to help illustrate where significant coverage is being located to help generate consensus that goes beyond simple votes. There is also a concerning lack of understanding of GNG on the keep side of things with at least one editor seeming to state that GNG can be passed without SIGCOV, when GNG and SIGCOV are the same thing with shortcuts for the two leading to the same text and SIGCOV is the first matter discussed as a requirement of GNG . Fundamentally there is nothing presented as yet on the keep side to show GNG bar a lot of statistical / primary sources. Am extending as a courtesy as there is no rush, but not sure how any reasonable closer could articulate a close to keep that was clearly grounded in accepted guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is almost entirely of the statistical sources; it's the other sources that are more useful for GNG-based notability. BilledMammal seems to be confusing the meaning of "significant" here with what a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill would suggest, although that is no more a policy or guideline than Wikipedia:Significant coverage not required is (and football at this level - the top division in England - already stands out from most football that is played - see Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Sports). A865 (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the WP:THREE that you believe to be WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm perplexed at @Fenix down:'s relist - and their comment that only a few of the (43!) sources are signficant! How many are needed. Sure, many are mentions, but there's some with GNG details. I'm at risk of refbombing, but I added a 44th reference. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bonus 45th reference, that has a surprisingly detailed biography. I'll add to the article 22:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. to preserve history/attribution and so that improvements can be made now that he's made his debut. Star Mississippi 01:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cox-Ashwood[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability. Barely anything for "Alex" Cox-Ashwood, a few more hits for "Alexandre" Cox-Ashwood, but nothing substantial from independent reliable sources, just databases. Fram (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find anything significant on Google. Found couple of trivial mentions on Newspapers.com. Alvaldi (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can also support draftifying the article per BeanieFan11 and GiantSnowman. Alvaldi (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, found [17] but nothing else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering he is an active pro player who just made his debut, I would support draftify-ing the article as he may become notable in the future. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - young player who has just made their professional debut. Give time for the media to catch up with that fact. Giant Snowman 20:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, good amount of coverage in his university career and active player.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ortizesp: Could you show me some of that "good amount of coverage"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say these are a start: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The thing is only OurSportsCentral and the Electric City Sports articles are independent, and the latter is only Anderson men's soccer senior Alexandre Cox-Ashwood and volleyball senior Regan Duty have been honored for their impressive weeks on the field and court last week. They were named the Jimmy John’s Male and Female Athletes of the Week on Tuesday. In addition, Cox-Ashwood was named the South Atlantic Conference Astroturf Men’s Soccer Offensive Player of the Week ... Cox-Ashwood led the Trojans with 5 goals and 1 assist in the team’s two wins over Mount Olive and Lander. He recorded a hat trick in the Lander game. His 5 goals currently lead the conference. (with the rest being quotes, so probably not SIGCOV). So I'd say he still fails GNG as multiple pieces of SIGCOV are required. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - [18][19] are primary sources, [20] is a database listing. [21] and [22] do cover him a bit but its a bit of a stretch to call this significant coverage, in my books at least. Alvaldi (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oursportscentral is a "news release", i.e. not an independent source but a press release. So thzt one doesn't count towards notability either... Fram (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, its word-for-word the same as this [23] Alvaldi (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per reasons of those in favour of this above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, some coverage clearly exists, needs further discussion to develop consensus as to whether the coverage is sufficiently significant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about non-notable footballer which fails GNG; can't find any online SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafizur Noor Imran[edit]

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

Non notable actor. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails every criteria of WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. with a side of IAR reflective of consensus. It is already the 17th in Australia and she is slated to be elected on the 21st. Given the duration of this AfD, it would be process wonkery to draftify this for four days to enforce consensus on NPOL. Star Mississippi 01:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda White (politician)[edit]

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

This subject currently fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG the coverage so far has only that she is running to replace a currently serving senator or listings of her on her previous positions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linda White is virtually guaranteed to win election to the Senate, so at worst this article is published prematurely. This is a proportional representation election and she is the first candidate on her party's list, which is a major party. The candidate will unequivocally meet NPOL unless she dies, and even then may still meet notability as an elected deceased person. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I agree with the nominator that the subject probably doesn't meet notability. But I came here to basically say the same thing that the person above has said: even taking WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTYET into account, this person will almost certainly become notable in only 3 weeks' time, so it feels like a bad idea to delete it now, only to resurrect it in 3 weeks' time. But obviously undeleting articles is easy, so we can still delete it now I suppose. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Basically in agreement with the above. She's not notable now, we shouldn't encourage articles to be created prematurely like this, but at the same time this is a bit of a waste of time given just how guaranteed her election is. Draftify for a few weeks, I guess. Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seems like a good WP:ATD in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More or less cutting and pasting my comment as at Cassandra Fernando .... Australia's federal election is less than three weeks away, for which this person is a candidate and barring death and/or an extinction-level event will be elected. On election, presumed notability will be accorded. Against that, deleting the article this close to the election creates attention in and of itself. If this was a minor party candidate, I would be less concerned and agree with strict application of the GNG ... but I think an 18-day suspension here is not unreasonable. Does the risk of drawing attention by deletion/draftifying outweigh the zero impact to this encyclopedia of waiting 18 days? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it zero impact? Don't you think readers would like to read about a future senator? ITBF (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ITBF Sorry, my phrasing was not very clear! I was trying to say there's zero impact on the encyclopedia keeping the article, whereas there's actually a risk in deleting it. We agree. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... close and draftify now per WP:SNOW ? Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments to draftify and re-create in a couple weeks are frankly ridiculous and are depriving readers of information for no purpose. Creating articles for safe seats is the standard for U.S. politics articles as nomination is tantamount to election. Numerous articles on 2022 election candidates have already been created - Allegra Spender, Monique Ryan - who are much less likely to be elected, not sure why this is being singled out. ITBF (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ITBF: Spender and Ryan are notable as candidates, while Linda White and Cassandra Fernando aren't notable as candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in 15+ years, going with my first WP:IAR. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify To enforce the consensus that Wikipedia should not be used as free campaign advertising for otherwise non-notable individuals. Note:my opinion was edited, replaced and removed in this edit by ITBF AusLondonder (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving anyone "free campaign advertising" and you going around to multiple articles implying I have a political bias is uncalled for. ITBF (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ITBF: Are you serious? You removed my comments on purpose? AusLondonder (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder Looking at the edit history, it appears to me as a genuine mistake, not unreasonable to AGF here. @ITBF Perhaps be a little more careful in how you craft your replies being conscious to preserve previous contribution and FWIW I didn't read AUsLondoner's comments as accusing you of political bias, again, AGF here. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Australian federal election as an interim place for the subject. There is not a consensus for creating articles for candidates in safe seats in the US (violates WP:Crystal) - instead a redirect is a usual and appropriate outcome. --Enos733 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal allows for the creation of articles where the issue at hand is notable and almost certain to happen. I've not looked particularly thoroughly, but quickly found two US House members whose articles were created prior to their election in safe districts: Donald Payne Jr and Trent Kelly. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly was redirected until the election (see talk page). Also not everything gets sent to Afd. - Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history shows in one the redirect was contested. In the other it stayed. I'm only highlighting that "There is not a consensus for creating articles for candidates in safe seats in the US" does not appear to be correct. We don't have a consensus for anything on this matter, rather lots of different practices...which is perfectly Wikipedia of us. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It is the principle - she is not notable yet. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need consensus on whether the subject passes the existing policies to secure the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless: How long can we expect this discussion continue to be open for? The subject will be elected to a national legislature in ten days. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there's no consensus on the notability so the article has been relisted for 7 more days. Less Unless (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that she's certain to be elected on the 21st and this now won't be closed before at the latest the 18th, this is becoming particularly silly levels of moot. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. with a side of IAR as is reflected in the consensus. The election is this week, draftifying would be process wonkery. If she loses, this can be revisited. Star Mississippi 01:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Fernando[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL unelected politician and also fails WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Australia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Similar to Linda White (politician), this candidate is very likely to be elected on 21 May 2022. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for a few weeks, delete if she loses (which is unlikely). Frickeg (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. If she gets elected in the coming election, presumably she would pass WP:NPOL and then she might have enough references to pass WP:GNG. Chanaka L (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect I'll be a minority here, nevertheless .... Australia's federal election is less than three weeks away, for which this person is a candidate and who in all likelihood will win (45 years since a tory won the seat). On election, presumed notability will be accorded. Against that, deleting the article this close to the election creates attention in and of itself. If this was a minor party candidate, I would be less concerned and agree with strict application of the GNG ... but I think an 18-day suspension here is not unreasonable. Does the risk of drawing attention by deletion/draftifying outweigh the zero impact to this encyclopedia of waiting 18 days? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't be keeping an article in mainspace on the expectation that the subject might be notable in the future. I don't really think we run the risk of drawing any media attention if we draftify this article. – numbermaniac 08:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify To enforce the consensus that Wikipedia should not be used as free campaign advertising for otherwise non-notable individuals. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...except we're discussing someone with a 99.9% likelihood of being elected to a national parliament. I actually think in a case like this there's not a factual basis to claim that the presence of the article acts as free campaign advertising ... given our policies around PROMO there's more than adequate means to deal with those problems. The mere existence of the article itself cannot be said to assist the campaign as any Google search shows her appearance in local media. Whereas removing the article creates news in itself - sort of Wikipedia Schrödinger's cat phenomenon. Ultimately, we're engaged in a round about process, that's only going to get us back to the article in 18 days. How is that making the encyclopedia better? Again, there's no precedent being set here, this is just applying some commonsense to a very specific circumstance. But, as I said above, I expect I'll be in the minority. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seems like a good WP:ATD in this case (as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda White (politician)). -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. They're likely to win, but we should only have an article about them after they have won, not in anticipation of their victory. – numbermaniac 08:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments to draftify and re-create in a couple weeks are frankly ridiculous and are depriving readers of information for no purpose. Creating articles for safe seats is the standard for U.S. politics articles as nomination is tantamount to election. Numerous articles on 2022 election candidates have already been created - Allegra Spender, Monique Ryan - who are much less likely to be elected, not sure why this is being singled out. ITBF (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to support that claim regarding American politicians? As someone who monitors AfD I don't agree with your conclusions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Kelly was created before being elected to a seemingly safe Republican district in Mississippi. There's even a 2015 talk page discussion mirroring similar issues as here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Donald Payne Jr created prior to winning safe Democrat district in New Jersey. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After not asserting it once in 15 years, twice in two minutes is presumably acceptable, I guess I have a few remaining in the pantry ... WP:IAR+WP:COMMONSENSE = Keep. regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed - please base your decision on the existing policies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Per WP:CRYSTAL, even if the election is soon, this article was written in advance of the election and shouldn't have made it out of draftspace to begin with. Doesn't meet notability guidelines to be an article as is. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 18:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." 9-10 days away from the election now depending on your time zone. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable approach for this case, but if this was to be replicated in policy, we would experience a nightmare of arguments over what constitutes "almost certain". Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Just applying the rules - at the moment she doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ITBF's comments, we all have better things to do than shift articles around for no critical reason.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted by AfD two years ago as unsourced then recreated with sources last year. A potential BLP violation, it lists unsourced birthday and marriage date, listing unsourced names of wife and three minor children. None of the sourcing directly details this living subject, but instead details the assertion of micronation status on less than two otherwise non-notable acres in Nevada. A reasonable BEFORE finds nothing independent about this subject which isn't primarily detailing the micronation. This is IMHO a stunt, and Wikipedia is not here to promote your public joke. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Popular culture, and Nevada. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. I had a browser problem while trying to tag and it tagged the wrong page after a redirect was applied. I'll live with the redirect. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus/Keep. this could legitimately be closed either way with !votes after the improvement not unanimous. With the outcome the same with either and given the era in which he played and the lack of consensus around sports guidelines, it is unlikely a relist would provide clarity to close this differently. Star Mississippi 01:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marino Nicolich[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a player with a few claimed professional football appearances in the 1930s. The only incoming links are from lists of people by name or nationality so it seems he isn't mentioned on any sports pages. The corresponding article in Italian has links to stats websites whose reliability I can't comment on, but also no GNG sources. This was a PROD, contested as "too controversial for PROD". —Kusma (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. —Kusma (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like it might be a notable player on the amount of games, firstly, why didn't you goto the article creator (Geregen2) and ask where did he get his information from and ask for the article to be improved before nominating?? Govvy (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did inform the creator (who is active) of the PROD, which in my view is an invitation to improve the article to prevent deletion. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following huge article improvement. Giant Snowman 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have expanded the article, I feel there are more sources out there to be found. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Not too convinced by the sources you use there (why reliable?). Best source I could find is at least half a page in this book, published by Newton Compton Editori. There are a few references to original news reports in that book that should help with verifiability. It is a bit concerning that we don't know when he died, though. —Kusma (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: My Italian is pretty much three words, you'd be better to ask editors like Dr Salvus or Nehme1499 if they can improve the article, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather draft it rather than deleting this. Maybe we find something of interesting? Dr Salvus 15:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stats sites are not suitable sources for a biography.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Govvy and especially @Struway2's expansion, the article does now have more content and better sourcing, including the book I found plus some newspaper reports from the 1920s/1930s. All a bit focused on his time at Roma, but this does mostly alleviate my lack-of-sourcing concerns (some of the other sources are questionable but this is not a GA review). Not fully convinced but I would not have nominated the article for deletion in its present state. @GiantSnowman, @S Marshall: what do you think of the new sources, notability-wise? —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to me! Giant Snowman 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit less impressed than Giant Snowman is, to be fair. Thanks to Struway2's expansion I can see ten sources in the article, and my view of each of them is:

Source 1 is this, from what looks to me like a specialist sports newspaper. The article is about the team he played for, and it includes a small photograph of the team. Nicolich is mentioned in one place on the page, in the image caption (he's second on the left). When the coverage is about the team, are we meant to accept that notability is inherited down to the individual players? I wouldn't say that's significant coverage.

Source 2 is this, a different article in a different issue of the same paper. Nicolich is mentioned in a block of text in column 6 -- he's actually mentioned in two places, although the first time they get his name wrong ("Micolich" instead of "Nicolich"). The first time is at the end of paragraph 4 of the piece where it says he played with exuberance and impetuosity. He's also mentioned in a block of text in paragraph 11 which lists every player in the team by name. I can't see how it amounts to significant coverage.

Source 3 is this, which is routine coverage in a sports stats site. This is a primary source that contains no critical analysis and displays no selectivity about what it publishes.

Source 4 is this, a primary source that contains no critical analysis and displays no selectivity about what it publishes.

Source 5 is this, an incredibly comprehensive book about everyone who's ever played in this team, and which I agree is one of the two sources needed to establish notability.

Source 6 is this, and it mentions Nicolich several times in columns 2 and 3, and describes his footballing skills in glowing terms. Nevertheless the article is about AS Roma, not about Nicolich as an individual, and it contains no biographical information about him, so it's a stretch to call it evidence of notability.

Source 7 is this and it should be removed from the article because it doesn't mention Nicolich and contains no information about him at all.

Source 8 is this, our old friend Il Littoriale again. It publishes another long, detailed article about AS Roma in which Nicolich is mentioned in passing twice, once in column 1, paragraph 10, and once in column 2, paragraph 4.

Source 9 is this, and I'd immediately ask, why do we think that's reliable? There's no publisher named, no evidence of fact-checking that I can see, and looks like user-generated content to me.

Source 10 is this, written in amateur-level html with no named publisher and no evidence of fact-checking.

So all in all, to my eye this isn't all that great. Source 5 is decent-ish but you need significant coverage in two independent reliable sources to establish notability.—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, source 7 verifies the statement that Volk was Serie A top scorer, so removing it from the article would leave that statement unsourced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive discussion of sources above. I'd add that I don't think #5 counts. It is just the print equivalent of database coverage, which we deem not to be significant. agtx 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not because the article as expanded demonstrates enough significant coverage to pass GNG; it probably doesn't, yet. I've only expanded up to the end of his Roma career, simply because I just don't have the time or eyesight required to search online newspapers of very variable image quality in a language in which I'm not remotely fluent. What it does demonstrate IMO is the likely existence of enough SIGCOV, as per WP:SPORTCRIT bullet 5. I think source 6 is mischaracterised above: it doesn't "describ[e] his footballing skills in glowing terms". It devotes a solid paragraph to an analysis of how he plays: what he does well, what he does less well; his style, in comparison to that of another player with whom the readers would have been familiar. It was pleasing to find something like that so easily: a sportsperson's biography needs analysis of how they play their sport. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would the closer of this AfD please consider relisting it, to allow Struway2 more time to locate the sources that he believes must exist.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a constructive suggestion; thank you for making it. However, what I said above is literally true: I personally don't have the time or eyesight or language skills required. The CONI archive is a great resource, but the print/paper quality of many of its newspapers doesn't lend itself to OCR and searches don't pick up every instance of his name, especially after it was Italianised to Nic(c)oli. I could fill in the rest of Mr Nicolich's career from database sources, so the article doesn't stop dead as soon as he leaves Roma; that would make the article look a bit less silly, but won't change anyone's mind about the existence of SIGCOV or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case how about we draftify this article until the sources you mention are found? We shouldn't have undersourced biographies in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:GNG, and sources identified above. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Some of the sources provided by Struway appear to be significant coverage (or nearly so). Given the difficulty of locating pre-internet era Italian language sources, I think it's reasonable to think GNG could be met here with some more time and effort by knowledgeable editors. Jogurney (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article is in the process of expansion and there are claims that there are IRS to be added, let's give it a try. We do need more consensus on the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has run a month, and there is absolutely no consensus to be found. However sources have been confirmed to exist, and they could be added. No policy based reason to move this to draft space, and the improvement could happen in mainspace Star Mississippi 03:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Samantha?[edit]

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

Zero reliable sources in the article, strong doubts in the notability of the subject. Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 07:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Metacritic lists 5 reviews ([24] [25]). Of those 5, WP:VG/RS evaluated one of them as reliable (Gamezebo), one as unreliable (KeenGamer), two as inconclusive (Pure Nintendo, Switch Player), and one has not yet been evaluated (Shindig). Are the inconclusive or unevaluated sources reliable? If at least one of them are, then the article could be kept (and if 2+ are, then it should be kept). Otherwise, it should be deleted. Jumpytoo Talk 07:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is in a state that is poorly sourced and the available sources do not inspire confidence that it passes WP:GNG, especially since it has only one source that is clearly reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There seems to be enough sources for an article, but only just. Some of these sources may need to be evaluated for reliability as they haven't had the chance yet, but they look promising.Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually avoid "coming soon" and "out now" articles as they are rarely WP:SIGCOV. If a game cannot even muster 3 reviews it is probably not notable enough. GameZebo is the only one listed as reliable on WP:VG/S which tends to be rather thorough in regards to any and all trustworthy sites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I'm not thrilled with the sources, but we have enough to meet WP:N and plenty with which to write an article. Hobit (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient substantial coverage to pass Notability. I was going to say merge into ROKiT Games & Respect Studios iaw WP:PRODUCT, but there's no such article to merge it into. So delete it is. Springnuts (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if additional RS are not identified, as more would be needed to justify notability Also, why are you asking? Samantha's right here... :) → Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify if someone wants to take a stab at improving this using sources above, assuming they meet WP:VGRS. Note that at current this is a stub that uses mostly unreliabe sources and fails WP:GNG at face value. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looks like Coin945 dug up enough sources to demonstrate its notability. Not ideal but at least we could write a short article about it, if we choose. Haleth (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources listed in AFD are sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is on week 3 of listing with very even conensus. I am not sure what the outcome of this article will be, As of now, none of the suggested sources were even added to the article, but some of these suggested sources are reliable. Right now I cannot identify a good resolution for this article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Madrid, Missouri. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of New Madrid, Missouri[edit]

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

List of non notable mayors of tiny town. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Durindaljb (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of minor places are not default notable. If a few were impractful enough to be mentioned in the history section of the New Madrid article they can be mentioned there, but there is no reason to have such a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge @Johnpacklambert Could you expand on how one determines the possibility for there to be a default for notability due to the size of a location? By applying this default due to the size of area governed biases the coverage of the encyclopedia to specific geographic regions with high population density without regard to the impacts to the cultural experiences of those in lower populated areas with equal lengths of history. The notability and impact may be more regional which does not have the same resources and attention devoted to the coverage of the activities. Given Wikipedia's abilities to cover long tail of culture and information a default argument that "minor places" is problematic and widens specific bias of Wikipedia. I propose that position lists should be merged at the very least with and checked that the data is included in Wikidata as the position holder series (replaces and replaced) by provide significant value to Wikidata and back to Wikimedia projects as it enables rebuilding the lists as a person may be identified to show the relationship of the position held from previous to current. Building lists of political positions is not necessarily easy and a process change from deletion without preserving the lists in Wikidata does defeat the work which it takes to create such lists. Merge to the place the positions are applicable and merge the data for position holders to Wikidata. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not one notable politician on this list. KidAd • SPEAK 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The mayors may indeed be non-notable, but the designation of New Madrid as a "tiny town" suggests that New Madrid itself is considered to be non-notable. However, tiny or not, it is world-famous on account of the earthquake. Everyone interested in seismic events has heard of New Madrid. Athel cb (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a govenment subsection of New Madrid, Missouri. Short lists like these fit into the existing article, which right now has nothing about the local government structure. Sandstein 12:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously this content could be put into the article on the city, so this is mostly a formatting preference. If the preference is against keeping (and it seems to be in other AfDs over at least the past year), it should thus be merged.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sandstein. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I do not see a consensus forming here. Language, contentious sports guidelines and no input after a relist. Star Mississippi 02:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Abdulhameed[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 30 international appearances for Bahrain - if you search for his Arabic name which according to NFT is 'صالح عبد الحميد صالح محمد محميدي' then there are hits out there. No evidence that the nominator has looked at the various websites and news pieces to determine whether the coverage is significant or not - and of course there is likely to be offline sources given the level he has played at and country he is from. Giant Snowman 18:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abdulhameed has spent eight years at Al-Muharraq SC, one of the most successful clubs in the fully professional Bahraini Premier League. The article is in dire need of additional sources. But I think it's fair to assume the player is notable. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 30 caps for the national team, I can't see why there wouldn't be coverage. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:SIGCOV in article, and none provided here; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Given the consensus to remove WP:NFOOTY we cannot assume notability based on number of appearances. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've expanded the article using Arabic sources. @Ficaia, GiantSnowman, Robby.is.on, Govvy, and BilledMammal: pinging the involved editors. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Nehme1499: It looks better, not my language, so verifying sources is tough. But I may lean towards weak keep, still feel it needs a bit more on his international scene. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arabic sources are routine match coverage. That does not satisfy WP:GNG. agtx 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly there are sources, as demonstrated by Nehme1499. It is also a very fair assumption that a player with 30 international apperances and who has played many years for one of the most succesful clubs in his country is notable, and we should therefore work to improve it and not to delete it. --SuperJew (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfDs such as these, and others which have been popping up like snails after the rain, i.e. articles about players who are clearly notable (many international appearances and/or playing for many years and having many appearances for top teams) but the articles are short and lacking sources, are exactly the reason why the SNGs like NFOOTY existed so as not to waste everyone's time on pointless AFDs. Perhaps there should be a better venue to improve articles, but doing it through AFDs is not the right venue. --SuperJew (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While I appreciate the effort to flesh out the article, none of the added sources appear to be significant coverage (just routine/trivial match reports, injury reports and transfer/contract announcements), and one article with a single paragraph interview response (not independent coverage). It is interesting that he was the first Bahraini national to play in the Saudi first division (but I can't find anything covering his exploits there in detail). There are many, many match reports at www.akhbar-alkhaleej.com that mention him (sometimes even noting he is an "international") but again it's just the most trivial coverage. I suspect this person was profiled in some way that might be significant coverage, but I'm not able to locate it. Perhaps another editor with better Arabic-language translation tools can find it. Jogurney (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The cited reference [26] describes his past activities in detail which, IMO, goes beyond routine coverage, meeting criterion 5 in WP:SPORTCRIT. Combined with the other sources and I think WP:SIGCOV is met. EternalNomad (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that article counts towards WP:GNG, but even if it does GNG requires multiple sources, and that is the only one presented. I still support delete. BilledMammal (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, per improvement, clearly there is enough out there, Govvy (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more consensus on whether the subject passes WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Mic Stand[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Impossibly poorly referenced advert for Amazon Prime TV show. Likely Fancruft. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and add details to List of Amazon India originals#Comedy Does need better sourcing to remain an article. I have moved the article to One Mic Stand at the very least to meet titling standards. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a reasonable television article about a show that has had its second season back in October-November so its not an obvious advert. Better references would help but refs 2, 4 and 6 are not as bad as the nominator suggests, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do definitely disagree with the ADVERT/FANCRUFT article suggested by the nom; compared to truly cruft-polluted articles for Zee, Sony and Colors soaps and dramas, this is hardly at the levels of those articles at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Refs in the article are useless, but on searching elsewhere I find it to meet WP:GNG based on these sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Hemantha (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Duggal, Deepansh. "Shashi Tharoor | 'One Mic Stand': Shashi Tharoor calls out PM Modi, speaks millennial lingo; his stand-up act becomes a massive hit". The Economic Times.
^ Das, Shreemayee (21 October 2021). "One Mic Stand writers room on making stand-up sets for celebrities, and training them to be 'losers' on stage-Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost.
^ Jha, Lata (14 October 2021). "Karan Johar, Chetan Bhagat in new comedy special on Amazon Prime". mint.
^ Parasuraman, Prathyush (22 October 2021). "One Mic Stand Season 2 On Amazon Prime Video Review: Comedy That Can Be Easily Ranked From Most To Least Charming". Film Companion.
^ "One Mic Stand: Shashi Tharoor, Taapsee Pannu take the stage for comedy special". The News Minute. 14 November 2019.

Keep – Meet's WP:GNG. Here's another source from The Hindu that provides significant coverage. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. It is not pitching to readers to view the show, it is not interlaced with promotional buzzwords, and it is not extolling the show. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - such coverage as there is is not independent of the subject, being essentially publicity packed as interview or article. Not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hindu ref above is PR and and lot of the above is PR, e.g. Mint. What is fintech company hosting an advert. Seems to mostly primary. I'm not seeing any real secondary coverage that is not being paid for. scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Hindu article I posted above is a bylined news article written by two staff writers. This is not a press release or public relations piece, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the title of the article, in which links are only present for the article itself and a couple of copies/mirrors of the original article. Conversely, press releases typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. The difference is typically glaring when utilizing such searches. I also doubt that the article was "paid for", particularly without any proof of this being provided; all that has been provided to qualify this claim is proof by assertion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that Mint, it's Mint (newspaper) from Hindustan Times' publisher. That article has a by-line and some independent content like mentions of past controversies. I agree that it wouldn't be sufficient on it's own, but in combination with other sources, I thought it had value towards establishing GNG. On the advert point, I disagree, per Northamerica1000's reasoning. Hemantha (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more obvious consensus on whether the subject passes WP:N
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources now in article and mentioned above here, including [27] (10 lengthy paragraphs), [28], a very lengthy article that made financial/political news, and [29] a very lengthy article. These are very significant coverage. This show has been successful in both India with it's billion-plus population and the United States. The article needs improvement, but not only do sources WP:NEXIST to show notability via WP:GNG, there are plenty that are now in the article. Jacona (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: disagree that this coverage is:

independent

- sources 1 and 3 read as press release dressed up as interview -eg: "When Sapan Verma first came up with the idea of One Mic Stand four years ago, it wasn’t a feasible project for multiple reasons ..."; “We were all YouTubers back then"While getting these celebrities would have been easy, we wondered how he managed to get Shashi Tharoor to take up the challenge. “That, I think was our biggest luck. So not many know but a few years back ..."

significant -

- source 2 is only peripherally about the show; it's substantial coverage about an MP.

Springnuts (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After almost a month on AFD what is clear is that there is no consensus to delete. Whilst there is also no consensus on whether to merge, redirect, cleanup, or any other set of actions, that is an editorial matter which can be hashed out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gordon in popular culture[edit]

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

Yet another "X in popular culture" article that has ballooned to an ungodly amount of "every single time anyone said the words 'Jeff Gordon' in a work". Far too many of these are unsourced WP:OR or too inconsequential to even mention. While the sourcing is a bit better than most articles of this sort, it's still prone to synthesis -- the Tim Wilson song doesn't mention Jeff Gordon proper, just uses him in a jokey mashup manner. I suspect a great deal of WP:REFBOMBing is also in play, as this is far from the only example where the cited references do not verify this.

The list of works in which Gordon has appeared in cameos can be added as a filmography list in his main article, but everything else is in sheer violation of User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Popular culture, Sports, and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep - AfD is not a substitute for improving the article ~~and no actual Wikipedia policy is cited in the rationale.~~ Any OR can be removed per BLP policy and merging to Jeff Gordon would make the target article too bulky. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the OR, then the article would be completely blank. I just proved that this entire article is indiscriminate and confuses tangential name-drops (or even material completely unrelated to Jeff Gordon at all, such as the Tim Wilson song) with notability. None of the sources corroborate that the material has any relevance to Jeff Gordon or public perception of him, a fact I also proved by picking a couple examples. And last I checked, WP:OR --which I cited --is a policy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If what's left after removing anything that's actually OR is sufficiently short, then it can be merged into the corresponding section in the parent article. Your own personal essay is not proof of anything. I agree that the article needs a serious cleaning, but I contend that it is indiscriminate or that literally everything is OR. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading at 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.

”

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ghost of Dan Gurney: AfD is not cleanup, and this particular article being a mess of cruft is not reason enough to delete it. If the article gets cleaned up by an interested party and what's less has very little substance or value then it can be merged to Jeff Gordon or simply deleted, depending on what's appropriate in that scenario. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFD may no be for cleanup, but this mess warrants WP:TNT. This is beyond cleanup, if thi topic is notable, it needs to be tackld from scratch, first by showing there are reliable, in-depth sources that prove this topic meets GNG. Then probably 90%+ of what's here would need to go, if not more. The lead starts by making an unreferenced claim that he is an icon; this term is used in some sources, but they are pres releases. If there are reliable sources discussing his portrayal in pop cultue, are next to impossible to find this poorly referenced mess of chaotic mentions. Many refs are PRIMARY or fail WP:SIGCOV. Blow this up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:TNTTNT and see how you've actually admitted that this is a topic worthy of an article. Are you willing to start it over yourself? If so, why do you want to hide the edit history and remove people's credit? Why is merging to the parent article not a viable option? This is a very lazy rationale, in my opinion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney I am fine, and in fact prefer, merging whatever's rescuable and redirecting this to preserve history. I didn' notice your merge proposal, which I now support as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeff Gordon#In popular culture as a WP:ATD while keeping the most major pertinent info. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus, or merge as compromise. A lot of this is redundant with the main Jeff Gordon article. If there is a notable separate topic, there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this due to a lack of independent reliable sources. If editors are really against deleting this, perhaps a short summary can be included in the main article. But I struggle to see it, because even the most famous actors don't typically have a list of every talk show they have ever appeared on. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be a subsection in his article with notable appearances in films/tv etc. We don't need a list of everything he's ever been mentioned in. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the actual notable appearances he's made in film/television (i.e. the ones that are more than cameos, use of archive footage, or "guest" appearances on talk shows) to the main Jeff Gordon article as a Filmography section. Nothing from the "Cultural References" section on should be merged, though, at those sections are basically lists of very non-notable trivia that boils down to "times his name was mentioned". Rorshacma (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I !voted delete above, and I still think that's a valid solution. But Rorschacma proposes a solution that I see other editors getting behind, and Merge to filmography seems like a good way to hit the main points, and remove the more poorly sourced material with WP:UNDUE weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: it's been another 8 days, and I see that multiple delete and keep !votes have said they would consent to a merge. That's the kind of compromise and WP:CONSENSUS building we should encourage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus which defaults to keep, which is the slightly stronger side of the see saw. There are valid points of view to keep, and to redirect. The tipping factor to keep is the qualifying tournament that begins in July of this year as noted in the penultimate !vote and the nom's willingness to withdraw if the AfD was still running on June 1. We do not need two more weeks when this has already run nearly a month. Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 CONCACAF Champions League[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. 2023 CONCACAF Champions League is still a redirect, and I do not see any evidence that the qualifying for 2024 is started. Can consider a redirect to CONCACAF Champions League or draftify or delete directly Hhkohh (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SALT Article will be needed surely? I would assume admin lock on it, till it's time to get it sorted. Govvy (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - far too early. Giant Snowman 16:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2024 edition is the first under a new format and as such there is enough content and coverage from reliable, secondary sources to support the article's existence. BLAIXX 18:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CONCACAF Champions League. The redirection can be undone later, thus preserving the current state and editor attributions. It's WP:TOOEARLY to even move it to draft-space as it could be subject to WP:G13 if not maintained. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only reason this article was created (over a year ago!) is because of the expansion of the number of teams from 16 to 27 teams, and the very different qualifying procedures from 2023 (and before). Alternatively, much of new format and qualification information (which is most of the post, other than the placeholders) could be Merged to CONCACAF Champions League#Expansion (from 2024) rather than just redirecting. There's no doubt the material itself is notable - the only question is where to put it.

BTW, 2023 CONCACAF Champions League qualifications have already begun, with the qualification of both Club León and Atlas F.C. in 2021, through reaching the finals of the Apertura 2021 Liga MX final phase. I'm not sure why the 2023 article hasn't been created already - normally it's created around September of the year that the first teams qualify (which were September butors to the page, User:C23J and User:Blaixx weren't notified. Nfitz (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)2021) by User:Chanheigeorge, who is MIA.[reply]

Also, I note that two significant contributors to the page, User:C23J and User:Blaixx weren't notified. Nfitz (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaixx and Nfitz: Thanks for inputting. If just the new format to create new season articles, WP:TOOSOON is still applied to me. Just put new format into CONCACAF Champions League is better Hhkohh (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an unnecessary effort, given the article would normally be created in about 5 months, and has already been around for more than 15 months. Not to mention work moving the new qualification details to CONCACAF Champions League and then moving it back again. The standard for TOOSOON is that there's enough independent coverage of it to confirm. This is not the case here, with international coverage in Sports Illustrated [30], Marca [31], and La Nación [32], among others. Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think these format change will meet independence Hhkohh (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How, User:Hhkohh, are those three newspapers - from three different countries - not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject (per WP:GNG)? I'm genuinely confused here. Nfitz (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, source meet WP:INDEPENDENT Hhkohh (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect Normally I would say that a redirect would be appropriate, given how far out this competition will take place. The issue I see is that there will be no neat way to merge a lot of the qualifying information into the parent article. It does seem strange to me that we would have an article on 2024 when we do not yet have one on 2023, but I am sure that is an issue easily fixed. I'm not sure I agree that the format changes alone qualify the tournament for an individual article, I just don't see a clean way of merging a lot of that information. Jay eyem (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are the thoughts on merging the information into the parent article and redirecting? I'm still not convinced this yet requires its own article and that the information can be redirected for the moment (especially once we get the 2023 article up and running). Plus now that the 2022 edition has ended I see no reason we cannot start the 2023 article given that qualification has begun. Thoughts? Jay eyem (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection with merging Hhkohh (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just don't see the point. Following the past pattern, we'd be creating the article in about 4 months or so anyhow, and the information in here is useful and unique. And surely going to be changing as individual nations qualification systems are clarified. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a bit where I am hung up, as well. From a procedural perspective I do think it is too soon and that the information can be integrated into the parent article, but I don't necessarily think it would be common sense to redirect it now only to undo the redirect in a few months. It might be worth merging some of the information over anyway, even if this article does end up being kept, it would just require some work to do so. Jay eyem (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The format change warrants creating a separate article a bit earlier than usual. Sounder Bruce 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The qualification for this starts with Liga MX Apertura in two months (July 1st) and end in November. There's no sense in moving or deleting this whole page when it will definitely need to be here in 6 months when Apertura finishes. It also serves as a benchmark for the tournament itself and having an independent page for the new format helps interested information seekers get what they need.--Lloyd2539alex (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note If the AfD do not close on 1 June, I will withdraw this AfD because 1 June will not WP:TOOSOON Hhkohh (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entrenched player's dilemma[edit]

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

Does not satisfy GNG. Perhaps worth a mention in a relevant article, but there is not enough to substantiate a separate article. – DarkGlow • 17:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 17:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention in three books and one paper is not enough to get its own article. Gabe114 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted under WP:CSD, non-admin closure because of executed CSD Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Zelocchi[edit]

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

Article is not supported by credible sources, with the majority of links being primary sources, such as the subject's own LinkedIn account or website, or broken links to unrelated sites. Dexxtrall (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search resulted in no evidence that this person is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow. The article as written is very promotional, but I'm guessing that this is because the article subject is an absolute expert at promoting himself. I had to hunt for references to My Little Princess - claimed as his greatest success - and most of the mentions of it are in press releases and glowing obviously purchased interviews, but not many. He's also got some sort of health care thing starting up, which also has a lot of paid promotion but no coverage that fits WP:RS. I did find a mention of him fending off a home invasion (note the 'self-described as an actor, producer and social media influencer' bit, that made me chuckle). That's about it. Fails WP:NACTOR. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is a scam. Spencer Cornelia did a 2 part exposé on YouTube (part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyA3xYlZDqY). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.119.148 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per criteria for speedy deletion G11. Added CSD tag. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 18:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears clear that offline sources are sufficient. Star Mississippi 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Hazlewood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rex Hazlewood

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

Hazlewood was a scouting official. All the sources we have are basically scoting publications, that are not fully indepdent of him. We lack any sources indepdent enough to lead to a passing of GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP, added ((Notability)) maintenance tag. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 17:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I see absolutely no evidence that Blandford Press isn't a fully "indepdent" publisher. If Lambert can't be bothered to make accurate comments, he shouldn't be allowed in the deletion process and his proposals deserve to be rejected out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.62.184 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Scouting Round the World is said by our own article to have been a publication of the World Scouting Organization, so by our own description of it it is not an indepdent source. So we have 1 primary source, and 2 sources that are published by scouting organizations, and one primary source. We have no fully indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beyond this, is the mention in "Scouting Round the World even substantial? It evidently is all on one page. While that still could be a substantial reference, it also could be a passing reference that would not add to passing GNG. Even if it is, it would still be one mention in a significant source, the other work is a direct publication of the Scouting Association for sure and would not seem to show notability, so I do not think it is a 2nd GNG meeting source, so unless someone can identify other sources on Hazlewood, we at best have 1 when GNG requires multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. Rex Hazlewood was a long term official of the Scout movement in the UK and made a very significant contribution to its development. He was a significant author, all be it in the specialist area of Scouting. I think it should be kept. --Bduke (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources exist to support this view?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep offline sources are not preferred but are allowed. That meets WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What off-line sources? You claim they exist, but do not explain what they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be in the references section on the article, where three are provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published in sources, author with many published works, also notable is in scouting roles. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely having published works does not make someone notable. There are people who have over 100 published works who are not notable. We need reviews of the works to show notability, not them just existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but someone needs to exapnd this article, please. --evrik ^(talk) 14:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's several books (from the google books link on the nomination) where the works of Rex Hazlewood are referenced as sources for material-clearly other people see him as a valued contributor and use his work as source material: Bloody Good, c2004; On My Honour, c2002; Urban Nation, c1968; all this speaks to WP:IMPACT. We can work through basic editing to add these sources and the fruits of the research over time, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue. AFD should not be used for article cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain at this time. I did a bit of a search. Couldn't find a death date (an obituary might well support a notability claim, but, I found nothing the The Times). The New Statesman 6 January 1961 707-708 did a review of a book he co-authored, "B-P's Scouts", but, I don't think that is enough to establish notability of a co-author. I do note there is another somewhat older Rex Hazlewood who was an Australian photographer so searchers should be careful not to confuse the two. I'm wondering whether much of this entry might be better in the Scouting magazine (The Scout Association) article given his main claim is as editor of an earlier incarnation from 1955 until 1968 and that many of the books he wrote/co-wrote complemented the work he was doing with the magazine. --Erp (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clear consensus that it is too soon for this sort of article and as such there simply is nowhere near the level of coverage of Europa Conference League hat tricks as a subject in and of itself to satisfy WP:LISTN Fenix down (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa Conference League hat-tricks[edit]

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

It's far too soon to have a list of Europa Conference League hat-tricks. While I don't oppose the existence of such a list in the future (we have them for the Champions League and Europa League), there are only three UECL hat-tricks at present, which is far too few for its own standalone list. – Pee Jay 16:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed. Giant Snowman 16:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uhm, just no. Agree with GiantSnowman, it's just not needed. Even in the future, you'd want some discussion in secondary sources about at least some of the hat-tricks. This is the first season, just three hat-tricks, no notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way to early even if possibly going to be an article lately. Three hat-tricks doesn't make a good article.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, not enough people have achieved this, so fails WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete now, but you must recreate the list in the future, thank you Angvtond (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, WP:NOSTATS, etc. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Harrogate. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Harrogate[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Lists, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harrogate: Per WP:NLIST, does not meet notability requirements in my eyes. Does contain some useful information for the proposed merge article if the contents can be properly cited. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 15:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harrogate. There are 11 valid links to Wikipedia articles about businesses in that city. I think it'll fit fine in the main article though. Dream Focus 04:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Fair Lawn, New Jersey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, Lists, and New Jersey. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NLIST Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 15:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NLIST. KidAd • SPEAK 16:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (keep) List of mayors of Fair Lawn, New Jersey. Djflem (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need lists of every mayor of every place in the US. Nothing less than that will justify this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also fails WP:NPOL, as most of the entries are red links. StonyBrook _babble 02:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:NLIST easily.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Christian (actor)[edit]

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

Page fails to meet the general notability guidelines for a biolography of a living person. All sources rely on his recent casting on Days of Our Lives, and provide not real-world context for who he is. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a notable actor as he played Police Chief Derek Frye for 17 years (1990–2007) in All My Children. He is currently playing as TR Coates in Days of Our Lives, being classified as a main cast member (regular). He also had other roles as Dr. Marshall Redd in Another World and had also guest-starred in notable television programs. He was also nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award for his role in All My Children from 1991. But the problem is that the nominator states that it fails WP:GNG since "the sources mainly rely on his recent casting role". The sources mentions his other work, life and they seem to be independent and reliable. There are surely independent articles about his other work in other sites. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then those should be shown to establish his notability outside of his current role—for which he is already exiting. All of this should be included to establish his notability as a BLP. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and GNG for non-trivial coverage. There are indeed non-trival sources out there prior to his latest role on Days of Our Lives, but most are behind paywalls since it was so long ago that detail his life and career. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also not mentioned in the article are his New York off-broadway credits that were reviewed by the larger NY papers. Like the 1989 revival of The Member of the Wedding and the 1996 revival of The Boys in the Band. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note article has been improved since nomination, appears to meet GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Movies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft delete, so no issue with the recreation, however the underlying issues of notability remain. Quantity of sources does not match quality. Star Mississippi 15:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Star Mississippi 15:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same rationale as last time. MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—there's also Exclusive Movies (streaming platform) that duplicates this article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which is a clearly out of process creation. I'll bundle momentarily. Thanks for the heads up Star Mississippi 03:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since the last AfD in that we still have an article whereby none of the references meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Howell[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Utah. AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 15:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL quite clearly in my opinion. I'll also assess it lower because it's clearly not a B-class article. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 15:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, fails WP:NPOL. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Year We Seized the Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:BK. Should be deleted. Gabe114 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gabe114 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reviews in The Sydney Morning Herald, Wet Ink, The Courier-Mail, The Weekend Australian, and Sun Herald, as cited in AustLit, indicate that this book meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1 and WP:GNG. I'm in general agreement with the Keep voters from the first AfD discussion. DanCherek (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews are enough to satisfy notability here - they just don't have to be online, is all. We just need enough info to verify that they exist. I've fleshed out the article some as well, so that it's more than just a paragraph. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to pass WP:NBOOK on the basis of reviews. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have just removed a notability tag from the article as this book obviously meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews as listed above and added to the article (thanks to above editors). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Multiple reviews. I also easily found scholarly discussions. pburka (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. The article is now at a place that I am happy with. Thank you all. Gabe114 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced since its inception in 2004, a "list" of 2 items for a "country" which hardly existed, and which never created any stamps (they reused stamps from elsewhere with a print on it stating "Bushire under British Occupation"). No evidence that this is a notable subject. Fram (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Iran. Fram (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced and non-notable subject. Ajf773 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that they were not even creating their own stamps makes this a fully pointless list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SNOW. Only lists two people, one a redlink, neither sourced, and the parent article redirects to another article entirely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Party UK[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like a notable political party. The only coverage I was able to find is from a less-than-reliable source [33]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Curbon7 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Curbon7 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's less than reliable about The Canary?

And they have more elected representation than some of the other UK political party pages. ThatCerv (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThatCerv, see The Canary's entry at WP:RSP for issues with that source. Also to the 2nd point, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curbon7 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A small and relatively new British political party without any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources does not make for a good Wikipedia article. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. czar 12:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Building information modeling. Star Mississippi 02:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Informative modelling[edit]

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

promotion of niche concept advanced by Blaise and Dudek. fgnievinski (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Building information modeling. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaram Studio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Kadı Message 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The above article's 3 newspaper references make it clear that it's a 'popular clothing brand in Pakistan' and should not be confused as some kind of 'studio'. These 3 references are already from reliable third party newspapers. In my view, meets GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 11:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 11:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there's huge amount of coverage around this brand. Have added some references to the page, but it's kinda hard for me to add them all due to excessive PR, and unuseful listings in search results. For me it easily qualify WP:ORG in it's current shape with recent edits. Radioactive (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first thing to do is pick the appropriate guidelines. For companies it is WP:NCORP.
- As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the *quantity* of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
- "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

With that in mind, an examination of the references shows that *none* meet the criteria as follows:

PT reference is a press release (fails ORGIND)
Business Recorder reference is a mere mention-in-passing with zero in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
Vcast reference is an interview with the managing director - not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
Express Tribune reference relies entirely on a press release (and says so), fails ORGIND
Next from the Express Tribune relies entirely on an information and quotes from the company based on an announcement, fails ORGIND. It also has no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
Something Haute reference is about a fashion event hosted by the topic company, a single mention of the company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Arab News is also a report on a fashion show/event and a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from The News is a report on a fashion show, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Karachista fails for the same reasons as the previous four, its a report on a fashion show, no in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH
This from INCPAK is a mere mention of the company name is an award category, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Dawn shows a bunch of social media messages which mention the company, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Oy Oye Yeah repeats an allegation that the topic company was accused of plagarism, no in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Niche reports on criticism of the topic company's "winter campaign 2021" for being environmentally unfriendly. No in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Cutacut critises an ad made by the company for their Winter 2021 campaign (same as above). Also fails CORPDEPTH

None of the references come close to what is required, all either discuss the products or rely on PR and announcements. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per HighKing. Seems that this company lacks independent coverage to pass its respective SNG. A Google search results in similar non-depth and/or independent coverage. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Seems like this article about a clothing brand Alkaram Studio already has much news coverage from many reliable newspapers of Pakistan. If the article needs further improvement, people should be allowed to improve it rather than out and out delete the entire article. Wikipedia guidelines encourage people to add to and improve articles? Deletion should not be the only option here. MelvinHans (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi duck! The reliable coverage alone is not enough per the guideline, which states that the content of the source must be independent as well. The article doesn't need further improvement, no one claimed that. We don't have an article on everything that exists. The subject is simply not notable. Also please don't add your signature on top of the page. ~Styyx^Talk? 08:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'Alkaram Studio' is ONLY a clothing brand of its parent company 'Alkaram Textile Mills (Private) Limited' which does not yet have a Wikipedia article. Let's wait until the company itself has an article to ask for CORPDEPTH there. This clothing brand has been already supported by many reliable sources and newspapers. In my view, it's a popular notable brand in Pakistan and meets GNG. Regards Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A clothing brand is a company, so it needs to meet NCORP. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is the volume of work does not meet the requirements for notability. JoeNMLC, if you want to work on this in draft space, let me know and I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 02:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Atanesyan[edit]

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

Non-notable film producer. No significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Keep: Today, I added some cleanup/content/structure. Awaiting this discussion before de-orphaning which can also be done. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added more content (education), cite, de-orphaned. Not sure if sufficient to keep? JoeNMLC (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are JoeNMLC changes enough to keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One brief theater-release of a film in 2011, then nothing else found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did an extensive search and the best I could find was an alumnae profile [34] and a passing mention in the Independent [35] where she's referred to as "the rookie producer he hired for Zebra Crossing". "He" being Sam Holland, the writer/producer of the film.-KH-1 (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all things considered, I don't think that the award is enough to get her across the line.-KH-1 (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not much input after Cunard identidied sourcing that countered the nom and Sergecross73's !vote, but nor is anyone contending they don't counter. Star Mississippi 02:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lip Service (game show)[edit]

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

Non-notable game show. Zero sourcing found. Deprodded because "notability is just your opinion". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, full DEPROD reasoning was ""non notable" sounds like a personal opinion. Cite a Wikipedia guideline in your reasoning." If you are going to use quote marks, include the actual quote. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being non-notable is a policy based reason, for the record. He's clearly referring to it not meeting WP:GNG. It's a vague rationale, but it is policy-based. And a rather reasonable assumption to come to considering the state of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still sounds like an opinion. If you're taking the time to put an article up for PROD, it's not hard to add "fails WP:GNG" in addition to "non notable". I've seen many articles put up for deletion with just "not notable" or something similar that was really only put up for PROD as revenge for someone's article being deleted, or just as vandalism. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure most people know that that's what they're getting at when they say non-notable. I'm sorry you've witnessed some bad nominations, but I think you're conflating issues at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"most people"...you just proved why more info than "not notable" is needed. Citing a Wikipedia policy would make that become "all people". DonaldD23 talk to me 00:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see people do this plenty, and you're the only one I've ever seen get confused over its meaning. Take that as you will. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any sourcing to satisfy the WP:GNG. No prejudice for recreation if better sources are ever found - it was nationally televised on MTV so they probably exist somewhere out there. But it was short lived in the early 90s, so sources are likely locked away off the internet on paper courses not easily found. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gnass, Jimmy (1994-06-27). "MTV Finds Few Locals Longing for Lip-Sync Fame \ No Contestants Showed Up in Virginia Beach To Try Out for the Show "Lip Service."". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Lip Service is karaoke MTV-style. Teams lip-sync and dance to the song of their choice for a cash award or prize. The crew is on the hunt for contestants. Lots of contestants. They plan to shoot 50 shows in the next three weeks. They need 150 amateur acts by the middle of next month. Contestants must perform in groups of three or five and be between the ages of 18 and 25."
2. Moca, Diane Joy (1992-02-16). "New MTV Show Is Just for Fun – No Serious Performers, Please". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "This Saturday, MTV introduces a new series designed to ride the crest of this increasingly popular wave of volunteer entertainment. " 'Lip Service' is a talent-driven game show," executive producer Lauren Corrao said. ... "Lip Service" follows in the footsteps of the TV trivia game show, Remote Control," MTV's first game show that ran daily from 1987-90 and continued successfully in repeats."
3. Gnass, Jimmy (1994-07-15). "Being on MTV Highlights Summer Vacation". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "When MTV host John Ales and scouts Rich Korson and Todd Warner searched Hampton Roads for contestants to perform on their Lip Service show last month, they almost returned empty handed. Almost. ... On MTV's Lip Service contestants lip-sync and dance to the song of their choice for prizes. The three young women landed a spot on the show, so today they begin rehearsal."
4. VanHoose, Linda (1994-01-19). "UK Trio To Sync and Dance on MTV Sorority Sisters Will Perform on Music Show". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "On Thursday, look for the University of Kentucky trio to do just that when the women perform on MTV's "Lip Service." The popular game show features contestants who dance and lip sync to popular music. Celebrity judges, like former porn star Tracy Lords, psychologist Ruth Westheimer, singer Little Richard and actor Al Lewis (Grandpa from "The Munsters") rate the groups on their performance, lip-syncing ability and choreography."
5. Moca, Diane Joy (1992-02-20). "MTV makes a game out of lip-syncing". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "During the fast-paced show two teams compete in three different rounds: Contestants lip-sync on the spot with no knowledge of the song list; they sing to a popular song while the stars in their own videos appear to lip-sync to the contestant's voice; and they perform a prepared routine to a song that is manipulated (sped up, slowed down and scratched) at will by T-Money, the show's resident disc jockey. The half-hour game show features a revolving panel of celebrity judges, including Linda Blair, Dr. Joyce Brothers, Tiny Tim and rapper LL Cool J. The final show of the first 26-episode season features the best four teams of the year competing for the opportunity to make their own video for MTV."
6. Rose, Allen (1994-07-13). "Hip-Hop Hopeful: In Sync With MTV?". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "I expect to have my hands - and lips - full all day. Big Apple folks from MTV's Lip Service game show will be in town to audition Brevard's best lip-syncers. Among which, I am. ... Problem: MTV folks say the only people who will be allowed to audition are kids 18 to 25. Such nonsense. What kid that age knows the first thing about lip-syncing with real verve?"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lip Service to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources shared by Cunard establish notability per WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boston, Lincolnshire#Education. Whether and how much to merge can be discussed editorially. The history is under the redirect. Star Mississippi 03:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Staniland Academy[edit]

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

Primary school which fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. PROD tag placed by MadeYourReadThis in 2009, but removed without comment by article creator who hasn't edited since. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability requirements, unless sources can be found. A quick google search only gave me general sites listing schools that exist, and the Academy's own news archive on their website seems to be to internal articles, not editorially managed secondary sources. -Markeer 23:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston,_Lincolnshire#Education, Like almost all primary schools, fails GNG, lacking secondary RS. No news articles on newspapers/com or the Google sites. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston, Lincolnshire#Education where it is not currently mentioned but can be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I updated Boston, Lincolnshire#Education to include Staniland and other academies, as well as adding a couple of independent schools. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my attempts to add information to Boston, Lincolnshire#Education have twice been reverted. I'm not willing to get into an edit war over this, so I leave that work to anyone else willing to try. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Fahim[edit]

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

Article makes claims to notability (zzinna awards wins, other awards) but none of these are verifiable, and looking for other sources produced nothing even remotely indicating any actual notability. Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just PRODed it in edit conflict for the same reason. Most sources are not RS and the ones that are, do not mention the subject. Possible hoax or at least does not seem to meet WP:GNG --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about cleaning out those references that donot mention the whole figure of the subject. Faheemkintu (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that based on the authors username this seems to be an autobiography so add promotional to the list of deletion arguments. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend, this was my first project on wikipedia, I am mistook the username for project name. I hope my explanation can impress you. Faheemkintu (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparent self-promotion with no reliable sourcing indicating notability. Seems to be too early in his career for a Wikipedia page. —Kusma (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you are giving is actually the first thing i should have thought of. I hope you can here me out and possibly continue to encourage me on the future edits, projects, and contributions. Thank you. Faheemkintu (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article actually claims nomination for Zzina Awards, after further edits, i'd love to welcome you to visit and review the article Faheemkintu (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will go on to remove the ((proposed deletion/dated...)) from the article so that you can review the changes and make a decision. Faheemkintu (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity spam. None of his singles have charted, no international success, his net worth of $50 000 seems more of a vanity item than anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete- clearly an autobiography, plus confusing to read and weird idioms? Asparagusus (interaction) 15:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leinster Rugby#Academy squad. ✗plicit 11:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Deeny[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; has made a single appearance for Leinster and in line with recent developing consensus, meeting sport notability guidelines does not justify an article alone. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leinster Rugby#Academy squad Ok, currently there's lots of passing mentions in articles and interviews, squad announcements, and news on him signing a professional deal. The player obviously passes WP:NRU as he's played in the URC, but there doesn't seem to be enough for a GNG pass. This might be something but I can't access it. In light of all of this, and given that he's a highly rated player who's played for Ireland U20s and will be in Leinster's main squad next season, redirect is suitable now per WP:ATD and if GNG sourcing arises soon, the player article can be re-created. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Rugbyfan22's comment. Creation of article was premature - player may become notable in time, but isn't yet. Have done some searching and not found any sources that would bring him up to notability. --Nicknack009 (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human Biosciences[edit]

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

Sources are routine and/or press release. There does not seem to be significant, in-depth coverage meeting WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Maryland. MarioGom (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2080:CD63:F846:BC97:47A7:FF11 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 11:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Buckley (cricketer, born 1875)[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Pinging Bobo192 who removed the prod for more information. BilledMammal (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm fairly sure I wasn't the original creator of this article - it doesn't read like one of my articles, and I don't recognize the external link. Hmm... wonder how that came about. My original edit summary was "Transplanted...", not "Created..." or "Article set-up", as is usual. I wonder where I took the text from... Bobo . 09:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo192 It seems like you performed a cut and paste move of the article from George Buckley (cricketer), most of the article history is in that redirect. [36]. This needs a WP:HISTMERGE to fix the page history and restore proper attribution. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. It was so long ago now that I forget which articles I set up in the first place. Bobo . 11:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it odd that you want to find online sources for a 1875 cricketer, WP:OFFLINESOURCES! There is very little out there online other than, gbolympics which states; Little is known about George Buckley other than he was a member of the Castle Cary cricket club and also the gold medal winning Devon Wanderers team in 1900. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources that actually demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists Subject fails the new updated guidelines, but clearly existed and won a medal at the Olympic games, which should be noted in some form, if not an article. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. There has been some discussion about this at the cricket wikiproject, and there seems to be the view that a set of notes could be put together with basic details about the players involved. In Buckely's case that won't be much, but we have basic biographical details. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G4: the article's content was basically the same as that discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette, with the new version of the article not making any additional claims of notability. I've also salted the page to prevent this from re-occuring.. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Barnette[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus was already reached to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette. I don't see anything having changed since then. This person is still not notable. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Military, and Pennsylvania. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 11:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Burchell[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod was removed with the comment there could be more info in local sources BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article basically says he did nothing. There is no gound to find him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists Subject fails the new updated guidelines, but clearly existed and won a medal at the Olympic games, which should be noted in some form, if not an article. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. There has been some discussion about this at the cricket wikiproject, and there seems to be the view that a set of notes could be put together with basic details about the players involved. In this case there may not be that much, but we have basic biographical details. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 11:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Corner[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Also fails WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams participated. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod removed with the comment maybe local sources in English/Welsh press are available and should be looked into as a first option here

Redirect is not suitable, as a different Harry Corner is mentioned at Savage Sisters. BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources that show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists Subject fails the new updated guidelines, but clearly existed and won a medal at the Olympic games, which should be noted in some form, if not an article. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD, despite what nom has stated. Just because the name is mentioned in another article doesn't mean we should delete the history of this page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. There has been some discussion about this at the cricket wikiproject, and there seems to be the view that a set of notes could be put together with basic details about the players involved. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was roundrobin redirect per the below. Star Mississippi 02:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Cuming[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod removed with the comment possibilty of more info about him with his MCC connection, per https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17919

Redirect is not suitable, as Frederick Cuming (artist) exists and should be moved here. BilledMammal (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has some false information. Medals were not actually awarded at the Olympics until 1904. Non-notable people do not need redirects, especially when they are not actual significant to the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While correct as trophies and other prizes were given to winners, the awarding of Gold Medals prior to 1904 for winners is retospective. Much like how prior to 1947, first-class cricket was not formally defined, hence retrospective status. So the info is not fake, otherwise the parent article would not have gained GA status. StickyWicket (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Frederick Cuming (cricketer) to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists Subject fails the new updated guidelines, but clearly existed and won a medal at the Olympic games, which should be noted in some form, if not an article. With the other Frederick Cuming, he should be moved to this base name, and Frederick Cuming (cricketer) should become a redirect as a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a series of page moves here, as outlined above, followed by a redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. There has been some discussion about this at the cricket wikiproject, and there seems to be the view that a set of notes could be put together with basic details about the players involved. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. ✗plicit 11:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Birkett[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod was removed with the comment there could be more info in local sources, based on his bio https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/17913

Redirect is not suitable as different Arthur Birkett's are mentioned at Jimmy Simpson (motorcyclist) and HM Prison Manchester. BilledMammal (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to keep redirects with this name when 2 other people of the same name are mentioned just as much on Wikipedia. There is no reason to think someone searching will want to find information on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists Subject fails the new updated guidelines, but clearly existed and won a medal at the Olympic games, which should be noted in some form, if not an article. Just because his name is mentioned in other articles it shouldn't mean that a redirect is null and void. Keeping the article history is important and therefore redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22: A redirect is not suitable as there are multiple non-notable people that Harry Corner can refer and a reader searching for one of them will be astonished to find themselves reading about cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn’t that logic apply to a huge number of redirects? I’m really unconvinced that it’s unreasonable to redirect here. Especially with him having been awarded an Olympic medal. That brings with it a degree of notability. In those circumstances I don’t think I’d be astonished at all to be redirected to such a page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if any of the other mentions were in anyway notable, then they would be the lead article with this page as a disambiguator, or as a disambiguation page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Medalists. There has been some discussion about this at the cricket wikiproject, and there seems to be the view that a set of notes could be put together with basic details about the players involved. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe A cricket team in Nepal in 2022[edit]

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

There have been multiple previous AfDs for A-team cricket tours, and they have all ended in delete (one, two, three, four), as these tours are not at the highest international level. The article creator has had multiple similar pages deleted, so while I'd like to WP:AGF, I think they're just ignoring the consensus here, which could be viewed as disurption or WP:IDHT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fail to show WP:NCRIC and it is not an international level tour indespite of FC/LA games. Fade258 (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fade258, It may not be proper International tour but this article South Africa A cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2021–22 is not considered for deletion just because they are test nations. So, I request you not to do so as having wikipedia article provides some credibility to the tour which rarely happens in associate countries as compared to test nations. Rmudvari (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rmudvari, Yes I know that as I don't say that your mentioned article would be deleted. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a proper international tour, as it's Zimbabwe A team. As a result, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article South Africa A cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2021–22 is also not proper International Tour. Since, between two sides, Nepal and Zimbabwe A, Nepal is a full fledged national side and Zimbabwe A may not be. So, this fact should be considered. The article like Australia A and South Africa A cricket team in India in 2018 which has no issues whatsoever and article like this is getting issues makes me sad. So, please do not consider it for deletion. Nepal cricket team itself doesnot have many exposure as compared to test playing nations so this should be considered as important match for Nepal. Rmudvari (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others, not a full international tour. Can't see any real coverage that equates to GNG coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It had great coverage equivalent to other International tours in Nepal. The match was broadcasted live and each game had thousands of spectators coming to see the game so it is an important game. Rmudvari (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmudvari: could you provide some examples of the coverage? Press articles etc... rather than press releases and so on would be a good idea. I can't see anything in The Herald (a Zimbabwean newspaper), but it might need Nepalese sources. I can find this article in the Himalyan Times which would help - if there are more like that then there might be enough coverage. Fwiw, without the same sort of sources, I'd vote delete for the other A tour you've shown us above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:OFFCRIC. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...there is no logical purpose to create an article for any and every tour a sports team takes. If the info is notable, there are several other more logical places for it to reside. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate repository of information. Jacona (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and I don't think an additional relist will provide one. We have the uncertainty around athletes coupled with a language barrier in source access and established editors looking at it from both sides. Perhaps if his career does not progress and/or guidelines stabilize, this can be revisited down the line but at the moment there is not a consensus to delete or draftify Star Mississippi 02:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed El Maghraby[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please retract nomination, player is clearly notable - multiple sources exist if you use his Arabic-translated name on Google. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent sourcing and expansion done by David. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG following article improvement. Yet another example of nominator not following BEFORE. Giant Snowman 11:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biography of a living person about a 21-year-old who's been playing professional football for about four months, and who according to the sources will struggle against fully professional players.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, the direct attack on the nominator above, is characteristic of this topic area. Football-interested editors have normalized this kind of behaviour through constant repetition and don't see anything wrong with it. In this case, the nominator is viciously lambasted for missing a search string in an unfamiliar alphabet.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn’t matter whether he’d struggle against pro players, the point is that El Maghrabi has played professional football, and has sources to back this up. He passes GNG, having two+ independent articles written on him, and passes NFOOTY too, having played for a fully pro team against another fully pro team in a competitive fixture.

The nominator was not “viciously lambasted”, they just claimed to have looked for sources, yet didn’t use the (readily available) Arabic translation of the players name. Considering he was playing in a country where Arabic is a main language, the criticism is valid.

I fear you are not looking at this nomination objectively, and clearly hold a grudge against football-related articles/editors, and I ask you civilly to approach football AfDs impartially in future. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, oh look, now that I've !voted "delete" I'm told that not objective or impartial and I'm only here because I have grudge against football.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes... because you have not been objective or impartial. The objective way to approach an AfD is to start with the question "Is the subject matter of this article notable?" In this case, El Maghrabi is notable, as has been shown after article improvement. Rather, you have approached the AfD (for whatever reason) with your first concern being that the article in question is about a footballer. The timeframe of the players' professional career is completely irrelevant, so I'm not sure why this was noted by yourself, and to then go on a tirade against NFOOTY and its members is very childish. Please can you justify your reasoning for the !delete vote, without bringing the entire community into the argument? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG and BEFORE, terrible nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A review of the sources makes clear that what's available is either routine game/player acquisition coverage or coverage that's mostly about the team or team management. A handful of blurbs that are a few paragraphs long simply don't confer notability. This is not a "terrible nom" just because this person has been mentioned a few times in Arabic news sources. agtx 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Editors should note that NFOOTY has been deprecated so playing for a fully pro team against another fully pro team has no bearings on his notability. The only thing that matters is if he has WP:SIGCOV or not. While it might be debatable whether the sources are WP:SIGCOV, I do note that they all seem to be from a span of 20 days in February 2022, which is a relitively short time period. Per WP:SUSTAINED, Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. In my opinion the player has only recieved a brief bursts of news coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. He does though have an active career and a decent possibility to gain further coverage so I think the best course of action would be to draftify the article. Alvaldi (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally see enough coverage to justify WP:GNG, which is all that matters. --Angelo (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has been established that there are several sources in Arabic covering the subject. No detailed argument as to the depth of coverage in each of them has been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been significantly improved with extensiving sourcing, per WP:HEY, that meets not only WP:SPORTCRIT but WP:GNG. I'm not sure what further @Modussiccandi: is looking for. It's most certainly not routine transfer coverage, which would be a mention, a sentence, or a list. There's full article here. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and it does not appear further input is forthcoming. The decision to keep or redirect can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Privy Councillor with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies[edit]

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

This office does not exist as set out by the PROD tag placed by Ebonelm in 2016. Appears to be a misunderstanding of the wording used by primary government sources to refer to the Secretary of State for Justice AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 9780853237877 page 379, written by a professor of political studies at Liverpool John Moores University who specializes in the Isle of Man, agrees with the article and not with you. A quick further search reveals one Jack Straw also disagreeing with you:
The relationship between us and the Crown Dependencies is a subtle one. They are dependencies of the Crown, they are not part of the United Kingdom, so the responsibilities I have for them are as a privy councillor.
— Crown Dependencies: Eighth Report of Session 2009–10: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Volume 1, page 6
Page 20 of the same report says "For these purposes the Justice Secretary is the relevant Privy Councillor." Historian Charles Crawley agrees:
The Privy Counsellor who is the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor is responsible for managing their relationship with the Crown,
— ISBN 9781443881289 page 363
It's a privy councillor according to the experts, not a minister of the U.K. government. Uncle G (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom are members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. The Cabinet is a committee of the Privy Council. The premise of this article is like creating a seperate article titled "Privy Councillor with responsibility for national security" for a role filled by the Home Secretary. What Crawley is saying is that whoever happens to be serving as Justice Secretary holds these responsibilities. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A better comparison would be with Lord President of the Council. Currently Mark Spencer (and until February Jacob Rees-Mogg) holds both that office, and the position of Leader of the House of Commons, and sits in Cabinet. However, Lord Present of the Council, which is a Privy Council responsibility is not part of the responsibilities of Leader of the House of Commons, and has been combined with different posts in the past (and sometimes no other post, e.g. Viscount Hailsham in the early 1960s), and has on occasion been held by someone not in the Cabinet (e.g. Andrea Leadsom). In contrast there are no "national security" responsibilities that come distinctly from the privy council, and hence the Home Secretary has no distinct responsibility as "Privy Counsellor with responsibility for national security" - all the responsibilities are part of the ministerial office. Mauls (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Secretary of State for Justice. Reading the sources, I agree with AusLondoner, this is not a position or office, it's just a description of what a different office does. A merge to Crown_Dependencies#Relationship_with_the_UK could also be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Secretary of State for Justice. It's not an office, it's a description of one of the roles of the SoS for Justice. Atchom (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although all secretaries of state are privy counsellors, not all privy counsellors are members of the government. This is a distinct responsibility from that of Secretary of State for Justice in the HM's UK government, and is the member of the privy counsellor responsible for advising the privy council on matters relating to the Crown Dependencies - which are not part of the United Kindom. It is wholly dissimilar to the Home Secretary's direct responsibilities for national security in the United Kindom, which are part of that ministerial portfolio.

If the decision is not to keep, then this should be a merge not a delete and redirect, as this material is not covered in Secretary of State for Justice.

Mauls (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that multiple secondary sources related to the constitutional affairs of the Crown dependencies are clear that it is a distinct office held by a privy counsellor, which is generally held concurrently by a member of the UK cabinet. See for example Kermode, D. G.. Ministerial Government in the Isle of Man: The First Twenty Years, 1986-2006. Isle of Man: Manx Heritage Foundation, 2008, p.173 "advised by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in his capacity as a privy counsellor" (emphasis added); Kermode, D. G.. Offshore Island Politics: The Constitutional and Political Development of the Isle of Man in the Twentieth Century. United Kingdom: Liverpool University Press, 2001. p.379 "The UK Home Secretary in his capacity as a privy counsellor ..."; The Times Reports of Debates in the Manx Legislature. United Kingdom: n.p., 1984. p. 594 "It must be remembered that responsibility for the Island's affairs does not actually fall on the Home Office, but on the Privy Counsellor responsible for advising the sovereign on the affairs of Crown dependencies".

In 2001 the Government of Jersey commenced legal action against Jack Straw, then the Privy Counsellor with Responsibility for the Crown Dependencies for not submitting a law to the privy council for ratification - Straw had not done so because the UK government did not approve of the law, but the Jersey Government contested that this was an improper interference of the UK office of Home Secretary with the office of Crown Dependencies Privy Counsellor (Straw backed down and submitted the taxation law for approval, so the issue was not resolved in court.) See "A harmful delay", (2001) Jersey Law Review 5 (120)

Also primary sources of the Crown dependendies governments draw the distinction between the offices, c.f. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ID%20Law%20Officers%27%20Complaints%20Procedure%2020160805%20ALS.pdf; https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/C%20Judicial%20Independence%20Appendix%201%2020170616%20DS.pdf.

It could also be pointed out that responsibility for Crown dependency affairs is conversely not listed in the responsibilities of the (office of) Secretary of State for Justice: https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-justice

I have not seen any sources cited yet in support of AusLondoner's contention, which appears to be based on the misunderstanding that the position is a post in the United Kingdom government, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional relationship between the Crown dependencies and the Crown. Mauls (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sources mentioned by myself and Uncle G to the article. Mauls (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to École normale supérieure de Rennes. ✗plicit 11:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annales Henri Lebesgue[edit]

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article created WP:TOOSOON" PROD was replaced with a proposal to merge to the publisher's article, but this was rejected without the notability problem being addressed. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to École Normale Supérieure de Rennes, or alternatively to Centre Mersenne. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above; no reason to lose the information about a respectable journal, but not much reason to give it a page of its own, either. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Holding Company[edit]

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

Per WP:SERIESA. Non-notable holding company with a couple notable holdings (notability is not inherited). Sources are all routine announcements or to the company's own site. Little to no coverage of this company specifically. FalconK (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Georgia (U.S. state). FalconK (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CORPDEPTH, there is only trivial or incidental coverage. Citations within the article itself are not independent, secondary, or reliable. Indeed, several links are broken and I am not able to locate these sources elsewhere. Further, company reports are not independent. Standard Google search provides pages of primary sources from the company, reviews on Glassdoor, etc. Google news provides some trivial or incidental coverage. Overall per WP:CORP, notability is not established. Such-change47 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InterCall[edit]

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

Per WP:SERIESA. This article makes no claim to notability at all. No reference is to a reliable source. Internet presence about them is corporate PR, with all mentions in WP:RS being merely routine business announcements or the company being quoted as a source for some data. They might be large, but they don't satisfy the relevant notability criteria and I can't find anything to add to this article that would make it right. COI tag unresolved since 2014. FalconK (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Illinois. FalconK (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not able to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Does not meet GNG or any other standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Etzler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:RESUME that doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. Coverage of this person seems very fleeting, and generally routine stuff - winning non-notable awards, announcements of corporate officer appointments, that kind of thing. I looked at the sources noted in the previous AfD - which had extremely minimal participation - and didn't find evidence of notability. FalconK (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given his current roles, he might be notable if someone wrote something about him, but I can't find anything.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Ellison[edit]

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

Sources are mainly articles about involvement in committees raised by Donald Trump for his own policy purposes, Lowe's, and JCPenney. The article is a WP:RESUME and I don't see a lot of news that's about just him rather than the companies. There are a few interviews, which are dependent sources and don't establish general notability. FalconK (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no applicable inherent notability. Consensus is clear among established editors that the sourcing does not back up the claim that he's "quite famous in Bangladesh" and I'm shocked. SHOCKED! at the verbatim !votes. Star Mississippi 02:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraful Islam Jhohan[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Procedural AfD. I've declined both a WP:A7 request on this (there's an obvious CCS) and a WP:G11 request (I don't consider it unambiguous spam). However, the subject is of very marginal notability despite the world records, and there's a legitimate argument that in these circumstances we should default to not covering a subject in the case of BLPs. Procedural nomination so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 04:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Bangladesh. ‑ Iridescent 04:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jhohan has a very distinct identity of himself not just because of his World Records but for his determination towards the sport- Freestyle Football. People of Bangladesh really look up to him as he is the first teenager from Bangladesh to make it to the Guinness Book of World Records. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - He has a huge popularity in Bangladesh because of the scene he has created for Bangladesh Freestyle Football. He has also performed in an UN event as the first Bengali Freestyler. I understand he doesn't have much notability in a global scale as Freestyle Football is still a growing platform and on top of that it is very much underrated in a country like Bangladesh. Despite that, he has managed to become the first self-taught football freestyler of Bangladesh which not only helped people to know about this sport but also get motivated to start training Freestyle Football like him. For this reason, I believe this article should be kept so that people can know more about who has created the freestyle football a thing in Bangladesh from Wikipedia. 103.200.92.252 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- He's a Guinness record holder. Actually he has four records. He has pretty good coverage in media too which prove his popularity and enough to make him notable. The article is very well made. I don’t find any specific reason to delete. Diptadg17 (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Guinness World Record holder doesn't entitle anyone to a Wikipedia article. It needs to be shown that there is significant coverage of them in independent, reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has a significant news coverage in Bangladesh which proves the notability of his identity and his achievements. Therefore, he definitely passes the WP:GNG and for that this article should be kept. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR6qJTnC49U - check this report on Arafat Rudro an emerging freestyler from Bangladesh who also broke a Guinness World Record, where he states Ashraful Islam Jhohan has inspired him from the scratch to pursue this line of sport and without him it wouldn't be possible. 103.200.92.252 (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— 103.200.92.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Comment" - he has his news covered by large presses starting from prothom alo (click here) to dhaka tribune (click here) which passes WP:GNG which proves he has a huge notability in Bangladesh and this page should be kept. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You're only allowed to vote once (and if all the IP users are also you, please stop using them). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that they pass WP:GNG. Having Guiness World Records does not confer automatic notability, and so far as I can see, there isn't significant, independent coverage to pass GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject has appealed on a Telegram group for Indian/Bangladeshi wannabees, quote "Any Wikipedia writers here?", "My page has been proposed for deletion and it would really kind of you if you could give a KEEP vote in the deletion page of my page with a reason.." source:^[1] 2
Delete can't make the cut over on Verified Handles so unlikely to get anywhere on Wikipedia ^[2] --197.12.220.215 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a weak keep Google search string of "Ashraful Islam Jhohan" -wikipedia -facebook -instagram -youtube -twitter gave me exactly 5 results. However that's just the English google, some of the sourcing looks okay on the article, The Business Standard and Dhaka Tribune have in-depth stories for the guy. So those comments above that say there is no notability really should look at the sources if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe Wikipedia should keep Jhohan's article since he has numerous national Tv news coverage that are independent of the subject (Ashraful Islam Jhohan). The TV news reports are covered by - DBC News ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbRcnRwXEY0&t=1s), Channel 24 news (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2i-8708Sjk&t=73s) , Shomoy Tv news (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdADG44H3hg), Rtv News (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf6FLgmrLvo) and Maasranga News (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4RZaeCfRzI) . Not just news, he has enough notability as a Football Freestyler in Bangladesh that companies like Oppo, Berger paints and Apex have chosen him to star in their Tv and Online commercials. Moreover, he was also the star character in the Bangabandhu Gold Cup 2018 music video. He was also invited to do an exclusive interview with the CMO of Grameenphone, Yasir Azman in 2018.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opXVeM7D6Aw) I believe all these sources proves that he meets the criteria of WP:GNG and is credible enough to be kept in the Wikipedia website. Zaratajmeen (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Zaratajmeen (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Weak keep - Apart from the world records i believe he has a notable presence in Bangladesh as a football freestyler. He can be considered as Philip Warren Gertsson of bangladesh and in my opinion and looking at all his sources I think this article passes the WP:GNG and this should remain. Sajid.nazmus (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sajid.nazmus (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@Govvy, Joseph2302, and GiantSnowman: This explains why there are so many new user here. Can we remove all the canvassing votes from this page? For example "Zaratajmeen" has no contribution. "Sajid.nazmus " has no contribution in the past 6 months and suddenly activated. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's something the reviewing admin will sort. Giant Snowman 17:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. I can read Bengali and there isn't any significant coverage in Bengali either. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you should check Bengali articles such as [37]] , [38] , [39] , [40] and Tv news report covered by Bangla Tv channels starting from DBC, Shomoy, Channel 24 and many more mentioned by @Zaratajmeen to have a clear idea about his presence nationally. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Those are interview, promotional type news (not independent of the subject). Quote from above "Having Guiness World Records does not confer automatic notability". আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should learn more about what are independent and non-independent sources in Wikipedia. This article clearly passes all the criteria for WP:GNG and this article should remain. He being the First Freestyler from Bangladesh to achieve a World Record and winning the first national champion of Bangladesh doesn't prove his notability? Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't think Bangladesh freestyle football championship is a notable event. English wikipedia doesn't even has any article for any country freestyle football championship. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not every event needs to be on Wikipedia in order to prove its notability. The Freestyle Football championship was held at Notre Dame College organized by a reputed club named OBAC, now just because Notre Dame College doesn't have a page on Wiki does that mean it is not a notable institution in Dhaka? English wiki doesn't have any article for any country Freestyle Football Championship because Freestyle Football itself is a very underrated sport and in Bangladesh it is even more and that's why Notre Damme College was the first institution to organize a Freestyle Football championship for the keen freestylers of the country in order to inspire more teenagers to join this sport. Click here to watch the video. [click here[41]] Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You proved my point. It's still non notable event. There is no significant coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, independant coverage of the subject, so fails WP:SIGCOV, as above "Having Guiness World Records does not confer automatic notability".— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt-Promotional classic Conflict of Interest article. Plenty of votes seems to have arrived from a particular social media post by the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on his article made by The Business Standard i can say he has a huge impact in the Freestyle Football scene of Bangladesh and has encouraged/motivated other Freestylers to join the sport. Despite Freestyle Football not being a popular sport in Bangladesh Jhohan has flourished among the people of his country by the name ‘Jhohan Freestyle’. He has more than 100,000 followers on his Tiktok account because of his Freestyle Football content. He really has a big name in Bangladesh as he is the youngest Bengali to break a world record. 103.135.255.29 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)— 103.135.255.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The subject was made to leave that message on telegram by some anonymous person who is constantly looking over this article since the day he posted a link of it in his social media platform. The person left a message on the subject's Instagram inbox that his page is proposed for deletion in wiki and in order to save it he should request some Wikipedia writers to vote on the discussion page, he also recommended the telegram group and the link to join to the subject. He not knowing the consequences and the rules and regulations of Wikipedia appealed on that group but little did he know that person was already in that group and he would take a screenshot of it to post it in here to demolish his page. Later he said he could save his page but he would charge some amount for that to which the subject didn't respond. "I wouldn't do this if had known only authorized wikipedian's can vote only." - stated the subject. He also stated, "I will be really disappointed if my page is being taken down after all what I have achieved and done for the Freestyle Football scene of Bangladesh." Now it is all up to Wikipedia to decide. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you all read his Bengali article [42] covered by the most renowned newspaper portal ( Prothom Alo ) of Bangladesh, you don't just learn about his Guinness World Record you also learn about how he had worked in his training day and night, sweating his lungs out as a college going kid in Bangladesh to become the first proper football freestyler of the country. There are quite a few articles written by renowned portals like Dhaka Tribune, Daily star and Prothom alo on his journey of becoming a football freestyler is because the most people know about football tricks in Bangladesh is how to keep the ball in the air for 10 seconds using their feet, which in other words we know as juggling/keepie uppies. So in such a country if a little kid pops out of nowhere with professional freestyle football tricks like abbas around the world, homie touzani around the world, side head stalls etc which he all learned by himself, people are ought to go crazy about him and that's what has exactly happened in Bangladesh. All national news and tv portals, including renowned telecommunication brands like Grameenphone, Robi (company) and Banglalink went wild back in 2018 to cover his story. He might not be Ronaldinho or Messi but he is definitely being considered as Enrico Rastelli of Bangladesh, for him people of Bangladesh knows there are also other things you can do using a football and that too on your own. He obviously has gained significant media attention and coverage mainly because of his journey as a football freestyler because there was another man who has previously broken a world record but he hasn't received as much coverage as Ashraful, which clearly states he doesn't just stands out for his Guinness World Records but also for his hard work, passion and determination towards shaping himself up as a Professional Football Freestyler at such a young age who is capable of competing in international levels in the future. He is also recognized by The World Freestyle Football Association and is also the first freestyler from Bangladesh to do the trick Palle Around the World which is also acknowledged by the association. I will expand the article accordingly if the article is kept by wikipedia because people should know more about who shed light on Football Freestyle in Bangladesh and left a legacy for the future generation of the country. This indeed will be a very interesting and inspiring story to read for all readers only if the article lives. (And this is not a vote) In my opinion, I believe he passes all the criteria for WP:GNG for all what's mentioned, and all his stories were covered by renowned presses of Bangladesh which had no affiliation with the subject and intention to promote. It will be really unfair to him if the article is being taken down. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He will pass GNG I hope so. He is very popular person in Bangladesh. He has got major newspapers coverage. He also got some certificate around the globe. So I requesting to the honorable admin panel to considered it avoid deletion. Salute all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MD Hydrogen 123 (talk • contribs)

Which sources actually demonstrate he passes WP:GNG. There's so much junk from canvassed IPs/new editors, and I haven't seen actual substantial, reliable sources listed anywhere here. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- @Joseph2302 The sources are listed below:

[43] - Prothom Alo [44]-Dainik Samakal [45]- Prothom Alo [46]- Sarabangla [47]- Daily Star [48] - Dainik Azadi [49] Dainik Purbokone [50] Daily Star [51]-Dhaka Tribune [52] - Dhaka Tribune

These are just 10 newspaper article sources only. His story was covered by almost all Tv news media's of Bangladesh but I think TV news reports are not independent or reliable so I didn't leave the links here. Attaining world records might not confer automatic notability but if he has significant coverage by reliable sources multiple times about his journey of becoming a freestyler and attaining a world record wouldn't that confer automatic WP:GNG? If there are numerous reliable independent sources covering his story about achieving 4 World Records, wouldn't that be counted as significant coverage? Or just because they cover his achievements Only they are not reliable enough? I don't think there is anywhere written in the GNG guidelines that if the news are about any specific achievements/world records only it wouldn't pass GNG. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Those are interview, promotional type news (not independent of the subject). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prothom Alo article elaborates the journey of becoming a Freestyler. It elaborated achievements and the behind the scenes of breaking a world record. How is that an interview? And how is that even promotional and not independent of the subject? These are not at all promotional type news. It is clearly written in the GNG section that works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it are considered as non-independent of the subject. None of these news were produced by the subject, none of them were paid and portals like Dhaka Tribune, Prothom alo and [[Daily Star]] don't even produce paid articles. They solely cover credible subjects who are worthy of a mention. All these news are independent of the subject as per the definition of Wikipedia. They don't fall under advertising or press releases, I highly request the admin to go through them all. This man is constantly placing paid promotion tag on the article and trying to defame the subject. This is not fair. Jhohanfreestyle (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)— Jhohanfreestyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Agree with source evaluation from আফতাবুজ্জামান, which means he doesn't pass WP:GNG, no matter how much the article subject's brother complains here, and no matter how many times they try to use social media to canvass people here. The AFD closer won't be fooled by this massive canvassing campaign, when the actual policy-based discussion clearly demonstrates non notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with আফতাবুজ্জামান and Joseph2302 regarding those sources provided still don't pass WP:GNG. I'd also ask that Jhohanfreestyle view WP:BLUDGEON as they are trying to dominate this discussion with their point of view to try save the article.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is quite famous in Bangladesh and one of the best free styler footballer of Bangladesh. I think this article should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by P.H.TARU (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's why he's asking people to vote here to save the article. :/ --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is quite famous in Bangladesh and one of the best free styler footballer of Bangladesh. I think this article should be kept.he has passed WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by আসির মোসাদ্দেক সাকিব (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC) — আসির মোসাদ্দেক সাকিব (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have any real sources that demonstrate that "He is quite famous in Bangladesh"? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the coverage appears to be regarding their world record. Not sufficient for notabillity. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Islam Jhohan, Ashraful. "Message by Ashraful Islam". Telegram (software). Retrieved 9 May 2022.
^ https://verifiedhandles.com/vhid/37211419024

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

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

The result was Speedy close. Article was moved to draft space during AFD, meaning AFD rationale is no longer valid. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Men Can't Jump (upcoming film)[edit]

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

White Men Can't Jump (upcoming film)

Unreleased, and unproduced, film that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines or general notability. An article should speak for itself, and this article says nothing about independent significant coverage by reliable sources, because such coverage is not possible, because production has not yet started. This is very much too soon and should be draftified (or deleted). I am not moving it unilaterally to draft space because it was already in draft space and then moved to article space, so the mover evidently wants it in article space (where it doesn't belong yet), so the community should decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Basketball, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be some news. Draft? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already moved the film back to draftspace. Seems like it was moved prematurely. ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’Doesn’t satisfy notability in any way, given that it doesn’t look that notable and the coverage isn’t great but I don’t think it is ready for article space, if it will just be moved back to article space when in draftspace, delete it and salt it if needed. Zippybonzo | 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. ✗plicit 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium as an investment[edit]

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

I attempted to copyedit this article but had to give up because there is almost no useful substance in it. It is a stream-of-consciousness essay possibly intended to promote penny-stocks and definitely in violation of the efficient market hypothesis. While the market capitalization of lithium stocks may be impressive, it pales in comparison with the market capitalization of the article, in that it insists on capitalizing the word market (and every other noun). Uses ampersands instead of and throughout and quickly gets lost in minutia. K. Oblique 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. K. Oblique 03:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsurprisingly, some parts of this article appear to be copyright violations: [53]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same hunch, but, if I am not mistaken, this may be a case of the external page copying the article. There is only one archived version of that page and the relevant text was present in the article before the date of that version. K. Oblique 03:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I'm not entirely opposed to the article conceptually, I think it would essentially need to be destroyed and built from the ground up. Article seems to be made on heavy bias, with User:Lithium-rich being the main contributor (you think they'd choose a more subtle name). Article is... admittedly made with passion for Lithium, but appears to exist to give the market the same type of 'legitimacy' as other markets such as Silver as an investment. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although article is poor quality subject is just as notable as the other articles about different metals as investments. Ping me if the result is keep and I will do a little pruning. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Radical prune or delete This is probably a notable topic, but the current content is more embarassingly NPOV than I would ever have thought possible for such a factual topic. This needs to be reduced to the bare essentials until such time as someone tackles the material in a neutral manner. If there's no appetite for that, then delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article has useful but poorly organized information. There appears to be no Wikipedia entry for the Direct Lithium Extraction technology. Nor do I recall a good discussion of the different types of substrates and mining techniques for lithium. The hard rock methods in particular can cause serious water depletion and pollution. Putting aside the 4th generation stuff, lithium is a critical international commodity which deserves an organized treatment in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:1C60:6C70:7DE5:B584:2E44:78A (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever notability the topic has, it can be dealt with at lithium and there’s no need for a standalone page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. JBchrch talk 16:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A two year old AfD is not a reason not to revisit this, and precedent in either direction is not binding. However, consensus, especially with the addition of the museum source seems clear that Sharp meets NMUSIC. Whether or not that is sufficient in lieu of GNG is a meta conversation for another venue. Star Mississippi 02:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Sharp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As I pointed out in the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus":

Searching "Rosemary Sharp" + "Canyon Creek" gave no results on Google Books or Newspapers.com.
"Rosemary Sharp" + any of her singles gave no results on Newspapers.com.
The only hits for "Rosemary Sharp" + "If You're Gonna Tell Me Lies" on Google Books are the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs books, which verify the Billboard chart positions and no more.
The only results for "Rosemary Sharp" + any of her song titles on americanradiohistory.com are just the chart listings from Billboard and RPM, except for one picture of her with a caption, and one passing mention of a radio program director giving approval to the single. No reviews of her singles were ever published as far as RPM and Billboard are concerned.

The people who said "keep" in the last AFD were either blindly saying "keep because charted single = notable", or "keep because there might possibly maybe be sources we don't know about yet". Neither is a valid argument.

"Charted single = automatically notable" has been contradicted in several AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Born (rapper), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Wolf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Sanz was also deleted despite that artist having three charted singles, simply because the lack of sourcing overrode that. Lisa Shaffer also charted, but her article was recently deleted via PROD due to my thoroughly detailed explanation of the lack of sources.

"There might be sources" is entirely WP:BURDEN. Her singles charted as high as #9 on the RPM charts, yet RPM didn't see fit to mention anything about her. Literally the only info we even have is that she charted and that she was from Fort Worth, both of which are sourced solely to the Joel Whitburn book -- and guess what, Brad Wolf, Victor Sanz, and Waycross are in that book too because that book gathers everyone who ever charted. Worldradiohistory.com is a site full of old music magazines from the time in which she charted, but every result is merely the chart itself, or an individual stations list of songs they added that week. And none of that contributes to WP:GNG. Attempts to poke the "keep" crowd in the last AFD about the lack of sourcing were mostly shrugged off.

(I am curious as to how a song that only got to #67 in the US got to #9 in Canada, especially given that the songs themselves don't seem to meet CanCon laws...)

tl;dr: while she does meet WP:BAND as a charted artist, that is not an ironclad reason to keep the article if the sourcing isn't there (especially given the presence of the AFDs I just cited), and it's patently obvious that the sourcing isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator nominated this for deletion two years ago and did not like the result; this is flogging a dead horse and is abuse of process. (So, for that matter, is the "precedent" TPH cites of uncontested PRODs he has recently nominated.) Sharp (still) meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I nominated it again because the last one was "no consensus" two years ago. You're allowed to do that on "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, meeting WP:NMUSIC is not the issue. Meeting WP:GNG is. There are NO sources anywhere. I couldn't find any, no one else could find any, and when asked, everyone just shrugged it off and allowed the article to stay unsourced. Did you find sources I didn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD closed no-consensus largely because of WP:BLUDGEONing of people who correctly point out that meeting WP:MUSIC with WP:V information is sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is not necessary to also meet WP:GNG; WP:MUSIC's bullet 1 is the GNG, and then there are 11 other ways to meet the threshold. (The claim that there are no sources is a blatant and irresponsible falsehood, as the article itself is sourced, and has been for the past two years.) There's no constructive utility in raising from the dead this two-year-old AfD discussion; the right place would be an RfC if you wanted to settle the point, but instead we have a scenario where the same procedure is being repeated, with the exact same circumstances holding, in hopes of a different outcome based on different participants. It's bad-faith. I am not interested in rehashing at length this discussion, and anyway, I don't have the bandwidth to respond to ten messages a day here, but I'll ping everyone else who participated in the last AfD in case they want to repeat themselves: @Walter Görlitz: @PK650: @Adamant1: @Samboy: @Mr. Vernon: @78.26: Chubbles (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. If there were no sources two years ago, and if none were found in the interim, then it is entirely appropriate to nominate the article for deletion (and delete it) now. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Lisa Shaffer also charted, but her article was recently deleted via PROD due to my thoroughly detailed explanation of the lack of sources." I don't get involved with popular music articles but this appears like an abuse of prod, if the subject meets a relevant subject guideline and taking the article to AfD might be expected to generate some interest in retaining. Merely having been deleted via prod says little or nothing about the community's view, as so few editors patrol proposed deletions and so many articles have been bulk nominated recently. (@Liz: as deleting admin.) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So even when there are literally zero sources, the article should be kept anyway because...? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I have no opinion on whether that article should or should not exist, as I don't know the first thing about popular music. However prod should only be used for entirely non-controversial deletions. If there's a conflict between what a subject-specific guideline states and the GNG then that's inherently something that deserves wider community exposure than just the prod queue. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why WP:NMUSIC says that we should keep pretty much anything that charts is to avoid long contentious discussions like this one. She passes WP:NMUSIC because she had four singles that charted on Billboard. She is hardly a garage band. This is a simple, objective standard which should be followed. This was true in 2020, and this remains true in 2022. Samboy (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And are WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:V then? We can just ignore sources now? Cool, I didn't know that. I'll go write an article about my cat now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense. We don’t have a notability guideline for pets, so WP:GNG applies in the case of my pet cat having a Wikipedia article. We do, on the other hand, have a notability guideline for music artists, so it’s a different ball of wax. I am also concerned about TenPoundHammer’s behavior here; looking at their block history they have a history of violating Wikipedia’s harassment policy, and, yes, concerning the lack of tangible content in their reply, I do feel harassed by their reply to my vote here, and politely ask them to stop. Samboy (talk)

Pinging @Sammi Brie: @ChrisTofu11961: @Caldorwards4: @Martin4647: @Jax 0677: for their expertise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After the last AfD for this artist, I found some precedents: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosemary_Sharp, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Spurs, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waycross_(band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet Black Stare, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jive Jones. One keep, one redirect, one delete, and two no consensus. Precedent leans more towards “keep” or “no consensus” than for “delete”. Samboy (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Waycross, Jet Black Stare, Brad Wolf, Victor Sanz, and New Born (rapper) combined show more of a consensus to delete. Waycross probably would have also been a "delete" had their song not been covered by other artists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samboy's argument is correct. The GNG applies to most pages. Some pages are covered by SNGs—subject-specific notability guidelines. While there is a long-term tendency in recent years away from SNGs or to stronger SNGs (something I'm familiar with from the NMEDIA and NTV RfCs), NMUSIC is still a guideline. NMUSIC prescribes that, if the artist charted once in country, they meet NMUSIC. Rosemary Sharp charted four times. Do I agree that she would likely fail the GNG? Yes. My own searching is turning up next to nothing; however, we are talking about an artist who charted in 1987, so even without coverage in Radio & Records or the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (or the Dallas Morning News, which I also can cross-check against), we could be missing some or other key publication. SNGs should generally harmonize or correlate with the GNG, though there are places where they diverge for specific and valid reasons. Here, the divergence between the SNG and the GNG makes this article stand up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're hedging your bets on the possibility that there might maybe possibly maybe be some sources? You don't know where they are, but you think if you just wish hard enough they'll pop out of nowhere? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or delete - On one hand, there are many charts. On the other hand, an article should have the potential to be substantive, should it not? --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRESERVE, which is policy, not a guideline. This artist charted in multiple countries, reaching the top ten of one nation's chart. This meets NMUSIC #2 (vetted guideline, not policy) by a mile. A newspapers.com search also reveals she meets NMUSIC #11, as her videos were scheduled in rotation on the The Nashville Network at the time of her popularity. It is not correct to say there are no sources. There are sources, they are in the article. Importantly, WP:V is met for every part of the article. The problem is that none of the sources are in-depth coverage, although it could be argued that Whitburn's extensive listings are more than a passing mention. Because of the lack of in-depth sourcing, the preferred solution would be to merge the content somewhere. The problem is that I can't think of an appropriate place to merge to. The information is of encyclopedic value because of the significant accomplishments of this artist. Someone doing musicological or music history research, or a vinyl collector could easily run across the art (musical recordings) of this artist and seek information. We can't give them much, but what we have to offer is better than nothing. Therefore the encyclopedia is better containing this information, and loses some value were it to be outright deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 78.26, and I added a source that allows us to point readers to the National Museum of American History, which includes one of her singles in its collection and further supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if one of her songs is included as part of the National Museum of American History, then that is enough reason to keep it in my opinion. Also she had several charting singles. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sammi Brie and 78.26. PK650 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Elmaleh[edit]

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

dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 23:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

keep - (I have connection with Elmaleh) David R. Elmaleh is an associate Professor at Harvard Medical School at Harvard University He has developed a number of drugs that are in use in man or in late stage of clinical trials. He is a co-author on over 130 publications (You can see his publications at ResearchGate) and an inventor on 140 of issued and pending patents (see list at Justia or at Google).

Please see this article about his work: Building Successful Businesses from Science-based Discovery - A Leadership Dialogue with DAVID ELMALEH, Mcgill.ca / Desautels Faculty of Management.

This article comply with the specific notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF):

Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work - citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books.
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

thanks - Ovedc (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where is the full disclosure ? User:ovedc was paid by David R. Elmaleh, you can see in the Hebrew wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:14f:1f7:cd15::327d:73cf (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you !voted keep, you get paid to do so. -FASTILY 05:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patents are not an indicator of notability whatsoever. The "article about his work" is a recap of a McGill University symposium that Elmaleh participated in located on McGill's website and written by their communications department. Wikipedia is not a resume or CV service. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I vote to keep as David Elmaleh meets the standards for academics, as his work is highly cited and influential.^[1] VeritasOM (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC) — VeritasOM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete most of his hits are press-releases or his name on patents. Almost vanity spam. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, Veritas is a novice editor, with a very few contributions, all of them afd, almost always vote for keep, scarce knowledge (in his field, the number of citations are meager, tiny), maybe he is a SP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:80:94D3:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
says the "person" hiding behind in IP address. Regardless, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Google Scholar".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY in my eyes Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 01:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ - (I have connection with Elmaleh) Prof. Elmaleh is a scientist, inventor and entrepreneur and an associate Professor at Harvard Medical School at Harvard University. He has many patents (justia, google) that some of them used at over a million PET imaging procedures (as Study Director). You can see article about him at Globes: From Musrara to Harvard: The serial entrepreneur who wants to beat Alzheimer's (In Hebrew). Ovedc (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You are only allowed to !vote once. And in your case, as a declared paid contributor, I would suggest !voting not at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has invented drugs which is notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject has a moderate number of citations in a higher citation field, mostly as middle author on fairly highly coauthored papers. It looks WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for an (apparently terminal) associate professor, and I'm not seeing it as adding up to WP:NPROF. The Globes.co.il found by a COIed editor above is a start towards GNG and WP:BASIC, but I'm not seeing it as passing it by itself. The article is not in great shape, and with marginal-at-best notability, WP:TNT may apply. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what he has done is very credentialed and his article is well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.37 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC) — 207.102.255.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MacOS Mammoth[edit]

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

MacOS Mammoth is not announce yet. This is crystal ball article like iOS 16 and iPadOS 16. Hajoon0102 💬 22:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Hajoon0102 💬 23:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already created Draft:macOS Mammoth. So, I can't move Draft:macOS Mammoth to mainspace because of this article. --Hajoon0102 💬 23:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hajoon0102: Ordinarily, I may note that the draft would take precedence where an article has been created prematurely, and while the premature argument could be true in this instance, your draft is no more than a sentence and so there is no real concern regarding attribution and development history that is lost if the current article remains. If the draft was already more significant, maybe delete this article over the draft, but it isn't. All you lose here is creation credit, which in the big scheme of things is trivial, especially with negligible prose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a placeholder stub since we know (or at least anticipate) that this article will be needed. As for moving the draft, that is only one sentence so it should be easy to add that content to the main space article. Lamona (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hajoon0102: Feel free to merge your content from Draft:macOS Mammoth to MacOS Mammoth. MarioGom (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is speculation, the basis of which isn't even indicated, nor the source mentioned. It currently serves no purpose and may well turn out to be wrong. Also delete the draft for mostly the same reason, and because getting into petty fights over article creation credits is just uncouth. K. Oblique 03:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've changed the article to say that it's rumored that it will be called Mammoth, and added a reference for the rumor, but it's still just rumor, hence WP:CRYSTAL. We can all wait another month; the article doesn't have to exist right now. We can leave the draft, if we want, but don't move it to mainspace until Apple officially announces macOS 13 - and not until it's renamed, if necessary, to give the announced name, if that's not Mammoth. Guy Harris (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Users are kindly asked to refrain from moving (renaming) articles while they are on AFD as it breaks a number of maintenance scripts. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly Election[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The event that may take place after 4 years from now. Presented sources are basically about the previous election. Entire article is based on speculation. The article was draftified initially so that the creator may take an opportunity to fix references but entire article appears to be based on presumptions. Hitro talk 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Hitro talk 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CiteInformation has been repeatedly removing the AfD notice on this article. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The next scheduled election can be an appropriate exemption to WP:CRYSTALBALL as mentioned and can include the addition of opinion polls or changes to the Legislature such as through by-elections subsequent to the last election. I note by-elections have been held. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note that this article has been moved to a different page, Next Assam Legislative Assembly election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see, there have been two AfD discussions previously on an Indian state/territory upcoming election: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election. For obvious reasons (ie the disbanding of that state) the latter was deleted. In the case of the former, there was clear sourcing in existence to justify the article and nothing to indicate that the upcoming election was anything but certain. There's nothing to indicate otherwise with Assam; no reason the article cannot be cleaned up to act as a placeholder of information. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election was brought at AfD 15 months before the scheduled election that is why there were enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. You were the one to point that out during the discussion which led to the withdrawal of nomination. This election is going to take place after 48 months from now. Just 12 months have passed since last edition of these elections. I do not think referring that AfD to make case for keeping this article has any relevance. Unless WP:GNG is met, this is a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Hitro talk 13:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HitroMilanese To quote myself, quoting, from that same AfD: WP:CHRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This format of "Next XXXX election" is standard in dealing with regular elections which have a unspecified cycle. There's nothing to suggest the election will not take place. Moreover, at some point we're going to move from "Next Assam election" to "2026 election", which would entail another round of deletes... or just leave this in place as a placeholder and save everyone the bother. FWIW - electoral politics in India is on a scale no where else on earth...there's already sourcing discussing the 2026 Assam election and even 2031. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment - In 2026, this will be the previous Assam legislative assembly election. Why should it have a name that is going to be wrong later? If it is to exist, shouldn't this be called something like Assam 2026 legislative assembly election instead of Next Assam Legislative Assembly election? Jacona (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona As mentioned above, "Next XXX election" is a somewhat common format for dealing with elections which do not have a specified cycle (eg UK elections as against US elections). Often elections can be called with only a few weeks notice, although it is well known that an election is approaching because of the term limit of a parliament. So, we can have both, and when an election has been called with an official date, for a period, the "Next" article can redirect until that election has completed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Inclusion criteria clearly suggest that the topic is deemed notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Presented rationales for inclusion are not policy based. Whether this topic is exempted from WP:CRYSTALBALL is a discussion for another day, currently for retaining this article, demonstration of notability per WP:GNG is required. Hitro talk 09:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not actually WP:CRYSTALBALL, this event actually will occur. It needs some work though for sure. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 01:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Macleod[edit]

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

Speedy was contested, so I removed it. However, I believe that the article should still be deleted. Sources appear to be too close to the subject and would thus fail WP:GNG. I also have concerns about WP:POV and WP:BLP. I think it's worth the discussion to come to a group consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per clear violation of WP:BLP Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 01:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Farhan Curious (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wards of Dundee. Or similar, as determined by editorial consensus. Sandstein 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee City Council wards[edit]

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

All of these pages fail WP:NOTSTATS. There is no proper prose (the only one which contains anything basically has a textual summary, unsourced, of the stats tables lower below) or other encyclopedic content whatsoever about these electoral wards which are of only very limited significance (i.e. there's not much if anything beyond WP:ROTM: yeah, most cities in Western democracies have electoral wards for local elections, but there's not much to be said about the vast majority of them, and these ones seem like no exception). On top of that many don't seem to cite a single source for the stats results within, so fail WP:V as well. These should all probably be redirected to Dundee City Council; and Template:Wards of Dundee should probably be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose: Hi, thank you for letting me know about this. I do not agree with the consideration of deleting these pages considering they are wards which have been useful in identifying the electoral results of Dundee City Council elections. Also, it is worth noting that city councils such as Glasgow City Council have pages on their wards such as (Linn (ward), Newlands/Auldburn (ward), Govan (ward) and Shettleston (ward) to name a few. Edinburgh City Council too: Almond (Edinburgh ward), Pentland Hills (Edinburgh ward), City Centre (Edinburgh ward), Leith (Edinburgh ward) to name a few there. I think it would be absurd to delete Dundee's ward pages when other cities and areas across Scotland have them and there seems to be no issue there. I have added extra references to these pages to back up the content but in terms of deletion, no, I strongly oppose. --KeyKing666 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that being "useful" (or other wards being similarly routine and unremarkable) are not good reasons to keep these ones. Wikipedia is not a statistical database, and readers who are interested in the exact detailed results can go on other sites (such as would be used as sources for supporting the content of the main article body) for this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so what would the difference be in regards to other councils which have ward pages of their own as I linked above? I seriously don't understand the need in deleting these pages when other councils have their own ward pages on Wikipedia. What's the difference? -KeyKing666 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyKing666: The "difference" is that there probably is none and those other similar pages should probably also similarly be nominated for deletion/redirected to other articles. As I was linking above, That an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. Or, in other words, similarly problematic articles existing is not a reason to keep these ones, it's a reason to remove the others, too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that no information would really be lost even if the pages were deleted; individual election pages (for ex. 2017 Dundee City Council election) already have all of the stats but with actual context and prose to back it up as a proper encyclopedia article and not a mere statistical database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian I just don't think it is a great idea because election pages would not have the list of councillors the area served. I've added sections about the ward and electoral history to them and of course sources. If we applied that same logic to UK or Scottish parliamentary constituencies and region pages, would they need to be deleted too? Some of the ward pages from other cities and councils across the UK have been on Wikipedia for over ten years and they've not faced any issues. What makes this is an issue? I just don't get it. KeyKing666 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that all that can be said about those wards is "The [x] ward was created in 2007 after the 29 existing single member wards were merged into 8 multi-member wards, one of which was the [x] ward" along with a textual retelling of what the stats tables already say simply shows this is information which could more efficiently be convoyed to the readers on a single page (I wouldn't know, maybe Dundee City Council, where none of this information currently is) instead of being split and repeated across a half dozen (i.e. see WP:NOPAGE). This not only helps readers (by having all the information they are likely to seek on a single article instead of having to recuperate it from multiple ones) but also editors (by making it simpler to maintain articles and similarly not having to check a half dozen to see if they're consistent; as well as avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort). I don't see how a little table of council members (information which can already be deduced rather easily from the election results tables), mostly non-notable local politicians, warrants keeping these as is.

If we applied that same logic to UK or Scottish parliamentary constituencies - if they have the same issues, namely being mere statistical dumps with little to no encyclopedic coverage (as opposed to routine "X and Y were elected in Z ward", which is not significant coverage of either the politicians or of the ward), then, yes, as I was saying, they warrant the same treatment: Wikipedia is not a database and this is probably one of those areas (like with all those thousands upon thousands of sports "biographies") where being a bit more rigourous wouldn't hurt. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wards of Fooshire overview: There is a recent (still ongoing?) discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom regarding the validity of UK ward articles. The current preference seems to be to merge the wards for every Scottish council (not picking on Dundee specifically) into a single overview, i.e Wards of Dundee where the results, representatives and summary information could be kept, negating the issue of keeping 354 wards which are little more than stubs, but leaving the council overview uncluttered when it otherwise could become bloated (e.g there are 20+ wards in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fife, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire). I will try and knock up a draft for one of the smaller councils over the next few days to show how it would look. Crowsus (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on a draft page for Wards of Dundee at User:KeyKing666/sandbox/Wards of Dundee. Still working on it but its a start! KeyKing666 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree with Crowsus's proposal above for a single article covering wards for each council. There's not enough to be said about most individual wards to justify an article that meets notability requirements. Any information that could go in a wards article could be included in a wards of... article or in a council election article. This applies for Dundee and all other council areas! Ralbegen (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to form a new page: Wards of Dundee. I do like @Crowsus' idea of having one page dedicated instead of the eight individual pages. I was having a think and I did strongly oppose however if we had a separate page dedicated to the eight wards, then you could keep the tables of councillors on each of the ward pages and add them. I'd happily go with that if this was something you think would be good? KeyKing666 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now knocked up a few drafts using Renfrewshire as the example:

User:Crowsus/sandbox/Wards of Renfrewshire‎ uses the maps put together by Draqueeb, the councillor tables by Draqueeb and a few others, the brief territorial descriptions mostly added by me, and transcluded tables of results from the relevant local election pages, condensed within a collapsible table. I quite like how this looks, but I'm aware hidden content is discouraged for accessibility and/or display reasons (?), so...
User:Crowsus/sandbox/Wards of Renfrewshire no collapsed‎ is the same but with no collapsed content - the tables are still transcluded but now fully visible. I think most would agree this is simply too much content on a single page to be much use, it just goes on and on - although because of the way the coding works, it is actually a slightly smaller pagesize (48k v 50k) than the hidden tables version.
User:Crowsus/sandbox/Wards of Renfrewshire no election‎ is smaller and cleaner still - it does not display the election results at all, instead I have amended the year links in the councillor tables to point to each ward in each election (not all of these jumps work at present, particularly for 2007, if this format was accepted I would make sure they were going to the right place). This version kinda keeps the focus on the wards themselves rather than the election results, but it is no longer a single point of reference for everything to do with the ward, unlike the hidden tables version; if a reader want the results they will have to click elsewhere. I would say that even this less detailed version would appear to be too much content to add to any Xshire Council overview article and would still need its own Wards of article - Renfrewshire's 12 wards is pretty much an average total over the country, there would be smaller ones but a few quite a bit larger. Let me know what you think - maybe on the Politics discussion to keep them in one place (I've listed the drafts there too) and avoid clogging up an AfD? Crowsus (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Crowsus. I'm all for having Wikipedia articles about wards with substantial history, or controversial/notable events, but these articles appear to be about recently created electoral areas with information that is better placed/already located elsewhere. Sionk (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Crowsus suggested, I have created a "Wards of Dundee" draft page in my own sandbox at User:KeyKing666/sandbox/Wards of Dundee as many now seem to agree that the above singular ward pages should be merged into one. What do you think? KeyKing666 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just copy pasting each article into there without resolving the "text which is a retelling of the stats tables below" or addressing the duplications between each is not a good way forward. Between the proposed options earlier something like User:Crowsus/sandbox/Wards of Renfrewshire no election would be more approriate IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the actual content, to be honest it still needs a lot of work. The issue remains that the only written content for each ward is a prose description of the info already in the councillors tables, and as this merge is the most basic kind by having each existing article copied over in its entirety, a lot of the stuff in each section is duplicated unnecessarily. And there is the matter of how the election summaries should be displayed: this draft shows the coding from the election articles in full, but alternatively these could be hidden (either way the tables should be transcluded) or not shown at all - I think that is something that should be decided upon for all the councils before we press on with the merging. But to give participants an idea of what these overviews could visually appear like, fair enough. Crowsus (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the relevant council article or a list of wards. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Dundee has a smaller electorate than Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, so has a slightly different status. On the other hand, if wikipedians have local knowledge of Scotland, that can be helpful for possible draft content. Mathsci (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mirfield. ✗plicit 12:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crowlees Junior and Infant School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Primary school that fails WP:NSCHOOL. Not notable because an actor went there. Kept at 2007 AfD with arguments such as "Being rated 'Outstanding' by Ofsted is a very rare eventuality and shows clear notability". AusLondonder (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be merged to its location (Mirfield) or list (List of schools in Kirklees) per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Trevis[edit]

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

Subject is a casting director - not an inherently notable position, even in connection with notable films - who happens to have some notable relatives. All working links to sources on the page are to IMDb or the subject's personal webpage or organizational webpage. BD2412 T 18:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough reliable sources to pass notability. IMDb is not reliable, and we should not be building article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not appear notable enough to justify an article. Article was almost entirely created by user:Sarahtrevis and an ip address, throwing serious doubt that an independent third party would consider the person in question notable enough for an article. Sources, as mentioned, also do not justify notability. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 12:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic Liquid Culture[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets any MP:MUSIC requirements outside possibly #6, and even that's a stretch. AuroraAlexander77 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arizona. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking them up myself I've found very limited results. Wikipedia Article sources are almost entirely dedicated to just... albums the band made or label deals made, but seemingly absolutely no indication of notability (reviews from third party independent sources, sales data, etc). It seems like ELC was a side project for some of the band members, so a possible Merge into their pages or similar approach would be warranted? A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laypeople[edit]

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

Basically a dicdef with a list of examples, rather than an encyclopedic topic. This should be deleted, and all of the incoming links unlinked. BD2412 T 23:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept in some form as the term is ambiguous between at least two topics with encyclopedic coverage: 1) a member of the Laity, and 2) someone who's not an expert (see Expert#Associated terms). I can see that doubts may be raised about the encyclopedicity of the second meaning, and in that case the page should be turned into a redirect for the first. Also noting that one of the incoming redirects is Layperson, which was an article that got merged, so it may need to be preserved. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty much as is. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this is useful "as is". We don't have an article on the concept of not being an expert in something to which we might point readers. BD2412 T 03:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems that the nominator's rationale for deletion is that this WP:DAB page should be deleted because it's a disambiguation page? This is clearly a likely search term, where there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that term may be expected to lead. It is therefore suitable for inclusion. The term also receives significant coverage in reliable sources and would probably survive WP:AFD if it were turned into a WP:BCA.SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think readers would be better served by a soft redirect to Wikt:layperson. BD2412 T 21:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirecting to Wiktionary may be appropriate in some cases, but only if none of the meanings are covered on Wikipedia (see the documentation at Template:Wiktionary redirect). If we have an article here about at least one of those meanings, then we shouldn't be sending readers away to another project. – Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments presented above clearly demonstrating the need for this disambiguation. As I've been trying to clear up links to this page, I can see the page is often linked to unnecessarily as a dicdef (usually when it is used in a secular context) but this is not an issue with this page and is fixable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic Detectives[edit]

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

Previously prodded in 2010. Current state of article has been unreferenced since 2007 and notability questioned since 2019. Not every show that aired on a network is inherently notable per WP:NTV, and I see no reason that this one is notable if zero sourcing exists anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added sources and more details. There are many more sources out there. StrayBolt (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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