< October 15	October 17 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Anthony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2016 N/C, but the same issues remain. There was a brief burst of coverage of his performances in Manchester, which are in the article, but nothing to indicate he meets creative notability or that he continued as a magician as I'm unable to find anything more recent Star Mississippi 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Magic, and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did a quick Google search and found nothing else relating to the magician other than the Wikipedia article. Also, there is just one reference for the article. Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:00, 23 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Chang (pastor)[edit]

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

Non-notable local pastor. Natg 19 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. Natg 19 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a different pastor named Raymond Chang, but is not the same as this person. Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random priest, not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cursory search confirms lack of independent sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, there's two local news stories linked, archives of copies of them from Ambassador Church's website, but they purport to be WaPo and OC Register--two great RS'es. Chang doesn't appear to be there anymore, per this which is a press release from about a year ago, but indicates that he's still a person of some more influence than just your run-of-the-mill pastor of a single church. This move to Wheaton may also connect the article Natg 19 identified, but that's not entirely clear. Regardless, this needs more looking into than the above !vote tally would indicate. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched with the terms " Ray Chang (pastor)" and "Raymond Y. Chang" but nothing significant was found. Fifthapril (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete although the WaPo piece is good, to me he's mentioned incidentally to the church. What about a redirect? Star Mississippi 14:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Mississippi, where do you propose to redirect to? Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Do you think the church is notable? I know it's currently an EL but do you think it's article worthy? What I saw when looking for coverage on Chang made me think there might be enough for N:ORG. Star Mississippi 18:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Lacks sufficient sourcing for a BLP article. Without more evidence of what he has achieved, I have to assume he is a NN run-of-the-mill pastor. If the article established that he had planted a dozen churches, if would of course be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG Bruxton (talk) 18:14, 23 October 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. We seem to have reached the final whistle here. The standard here is GNG. The keep votes talk about a single source or sources must exist, which is not an objective test of passing GNG. Sourcing that meets GNG has not been provided here so the arguments that this fails GNG prevail. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli Rozhkov[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This editor, despite being counseled that footballers need to pass GNG, continues to create these stubs about footballers who, even if WP:NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, wouldn't meet even that low bar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're not able to run the Russian sources then this nomination is a bias one in my opinion. A lot of top flight Russian games, extensive career, I find it hard to believe that he can not pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into whether the article can pass the GNG, and it looks likely (but my Russian-language coverage searches are hampered due to the current state of Russian websites). That said, Rozhkov never played in the Russian top flight - he played 84 second division matches (70 with Khimki and 14 with Torpedo-Viktoria NN) but everything else was in the third division or below. Jogurney (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, as per quick look at Russian Wikipedia page.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unlike many of the other articles this editor created that are currently nominated for deletion, this involves a former footballer who appears to have played for a couple of seasons in the Russian second division (with Khimki and Torpedo-Viktoria NN) although he appears to have been a reserve at that point. As such, it likely would have satisfied NFOOTBALL prior to its deprecation. A quick search shows recent coverage of his coaching career, but I'll need some time to look for coverage on his playing career. Jogurney (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per OneI, the goalposts have moved on this type of article. See what I did there? Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've tried to find SIGCOV, and I think the two articles I added to Rozhkov's article get us just about there. The sovsport.ru article is pretty short, but I did particularly enjoy reading about how he accidentally threw the ball into his own net to knock his club out of the cup ;). @GiantSnowman, you may want to review those articles. Jogurney (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - btw, looking at the Russian article, it has a single reference, which is just a short blurb (the other is a link to a wikipage), and then an interview in the final section. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No admin has decided to close this discussion all day so I'm giving it another week for consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source mentioned above seems very good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:SIGCOV. I would not consider the Russian language source reliable as it cites a wiki page as source, and has an interview section which lacks independence. As such we lack multiple pieces of reliable independent RS to pass our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim Mir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but I do not see that factors have changed since the January AfD, nor does a search identify new sourcing. If kept, history merge with Draft:Tasnim Mir is likely needed. If deleted, recommend SALT. Star Mississippi 14:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Factors have changed since the January due to 2 wins at Iran Fajr International [1] and India Chattisgarh International Challenge [2]. --Florentyna (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and India. Star Mississippi 14:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

search again on google. She is popular now. She also won 1 international tournament 2 days ago and an emerging award from one of the biggest sports magazine in India. Hopefully it helps to change your decision. Surgedesk (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For completion's sake, @Explicit: just deleted Draft:Tasnim Mir as G13. Should consensus develop that she's notable and this be kept, my comments on the history merge remain as there's significant deleted history there. Star Mississippi 02:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She played International Matches many times and also the winner of that matches. As of Times of India (A Reliable source), She is the first Indian Girl to become junior world No.1 Contributor008 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have added career and personal details to the page which should establish further notability if required. JTF2020 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Florentyna. Ginbopewz (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Star Mississippi 02:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.ZanciD (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock. Star Mississippi 02:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'll just add that 2 or the 4 Keeps were from sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reluctantly, I agree with the sockpuppets that the subject has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:55, 23 October 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 Makua people#Religion. Star Mississippi 14:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muluku[edit]

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

This has been flagged as a potential hoax. Not only has the article been an unsourced WP:PERMASTUB since its creation in May 2004, but a search for "Muluku Mozambique" or "Muluku god" or anything come to that mostly returns results that can be traced back to the article itself. There is apparently an OUP book that mentions Muluku, but I’m unable to access it and therefore cannot be sure of its veracity.

This might have been a partial name-change of Nana Buluku. Furthermore, the traditional Makua religion does not have a god of creation per se. The article has not been edited that much since its creation, which is always a red flag, and the writing is some of the worst I’ve ever seen for any Wikipedia article. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Religion, and Africa. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I poked around Google Books and managed to track down plenty of snippets and previews that back up the story. Here's a few:

Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual, published 2016[3]
A Visual Guide to Evolution and Genetics, published 2018[4]
African Mythology, A to Z[5]
This one is the real kicker as it was published in 1979, so no chance of a Wikipedia hoax corrupting it. Mythologies of the World: A Concise Encyclopedia[6]

I think there are enough sources to make an article viable, although it being all but abandoned for 18 years might make finding editors dicey. Maybe the wikiprojects for Mozambique, mythology, or religion would be interested. Blue Edits (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. There is nothing worth saving in this article, except maybe the first sentence if it were cited, but we should leave a blank slate for any future article. Ovinus (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was wrong! To me, this case is reminiscent of Ruda Real: a likely real entity got corrupted into a fictitious story on Wikipedia.

The 1979 book is an excellent find! Even so, I’m not sure this is notable enough. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Makua people#Religion. I've copyedited the article and added some of the sources found by Blue Edits and the OP. Not a hoax, but it doesn't seem likely that this article will ever be more than a paragraph long, so I think it would make sense to merge it. (See also Minepa.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Merge? They all have their advocates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sojourner. Makua people is already a pretty short article, no need to splinter everything Wikipedia has on them into substubs. BrigadierG (talk) 23:51, 16 October 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 Slater Jewell-Kemker as it seems no one objects to this. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Unstoppable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First nomination ended in no consensus, but notability question has remained since December 2021. I found no evidence of this film passing WP:NFILM. Lots of awards listed, but all are small, minor awards. Not every award is notable as anyone can give out an award. Let's decide once and for all if this film should be kept and have the notability tag removed, or if it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Environment, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing here was never solid or notability-building in the first place — the strongest source is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a fairly short blurb about the filmmaker's participation in an event nestled inside a not-otherwise-about-her liveblog of the overall event, which isn't enough — but the first discussion ended up landing no consensus because nobody weighed in at all besides me and one other user. I do still believe it's a delete, for the record, but as the nominator the first time I'd really just be repeating myself if I exhaustively listed all the problems with each individual source, so let's just leave it at "everything I said in the first discussion still applies". Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant international coverage, in the USA, and in Australia. There's also no shortage of blurbs from renowned sources around the world, such as Variety, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, Avanti and Marie Claire; while they don't meet GNG, does note that there's international interest. Also, why would this ever be a delete? How would it not be a redirect to Slater Jewell-Kemker? Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are all either passing mentions, or articles about the participants in the documentary...not the documentary itself. The "significant" coverage you pointed out...the CNN and Australian articles are about the director. They would help her article pass any notability question...but they do not support notability for this film. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how, User:Donaldd23 could this possibly be a delete, rather than a redirect - or a merge? Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are viable options too. My point is that the film does not stand on its own and should not have its own article. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 16 October 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 content, but potentially rename. There isn't a scenario where this content will be deleted. Discussion on whether to rename or create an article about the incident and merge it can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Crockwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Leo Crockwell

Nominating for procedural reasons, I know the article is well sourced but I am not sure it meets WIKI:GNG, WIKI:CRIME, or WIKI:BIO.--IMR2000 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not heard of the event, coverage seems to be purely local sources. Although it is going to the provincial Supreme Court, so that's something. Would like to see coverage from outside the area to show it was a notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the Globe and Mail - the largest national newspaper in Canada, local. Or some of the Toronto-based CBC coverage (most of the coverage is indeed from Newfoundland, but some of the CBC coverage is very national - and the story did receive national attention at the time). I won't opine of the worthiness of the article though - I'm not well versed enough in crime. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The standoff appears to clearly be notable, and I think that the subject would be better covered in an article about the event rather than having a standalone article. He's not a WP:BLP1E; he has received coverage outside of the context of the standoff, but the extent has been much more minor. That being said, no page for the event yet exists, and I would hesitate to delete a notable article on the basis that some merge with a not yet existing article would be a potentially better way of providing coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move to an event page. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There's not really a policy based reason to delete or move this page as an WP:ATD. We have enough WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage across multiple events to prove notability for a biography page per WP:BASIC, and the coverage is sufficiently national in scope to pass criteria 1 of WP:CRIMINAL. That said per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I do think we might achieve better coverage for editorial reasons as an event page rather than a biographical entry.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no event article to move this to. Should this article title just be changed so it is about the event instead of the individual? I don't see a lot of consensus for any particular action right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the event. The current sources still leave some uncertainty notability, however the event is more likely to be notable than the individual, due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Boy Cereal[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a cereal brand, not making any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that it exists, which isn't enough in and of itself, and otherwise it's just a corporate history timeline -- and apart from the company's own self-published website about itself in the external links, there's no independent reliable source coverage about it to establish passage of WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abject cruft. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added eight references from the last 90 years. Of significance are the 2003 Western Producer article and the 2007 Edmonton Journal. The 1970 Edmonton Journal piece is very extensive - and though I think it's GNG, it might count as opinion. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Sources added by Nfitz have greatly improved the article. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet GNG, sources are good. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved since the nomination. It meets the [WP:GNG]]. It has been also mentioned in many books 1, 2, 3. Although just passing mentions but that still shows it's significance. Fifthapril (talk) 04:41, 17 October 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 14:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Lemon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, Lack of independent and reliable references. AmirŞah 23:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, People, ~~Women~~, and New Zealand. AmirŞah 23:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found one guy named Glen who really likes him (author of the article's only source currently), a New Zealand Herald article, and some letters to and/or from him (which I have not read, because they're behind a "request access" thing). I'm leaning toward this being salvageable, but I'm not completely convinced. 3mi1y (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following article expansion. Meets WP:NMUSICIAN. Paora (talk) 00:00, 23 October 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 14:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Wali Naeemi[edit]

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

It looks like the reporting was in error. As of October 2022, the UN still lists Naseer Faiq as charge d'affaires. And there is no other claim of notability for this BLP. The Khaama Press Agency, which is cited in the article, appears to have corrected its initial report [7]. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and Afghanistan. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability from his roles. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No inherent notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I have also checked and it's true that the UN still lists Naseer Faiq as charge d'affaires 1. Fifthapril (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nominator. Alex-h (talk) 13:20, 19 October 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 William Grey, 13th Baron Grey de Wilton. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Grey, Baroness Grey de Wilton[edit]

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

A purely genealogical entry. No other coverage exists. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a candidate for merge (into William Grey, 13th Baron Grey de Wilton) rather than delete? I'm not sure how clear it is that "no other coverage exists" but the existing article does not currently demonstrate independent notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again: no coverage other than genealogical publications. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can and indeed did read what you wrote, but you have not convinced me that you have combed every academic library and oop local history book for details on the subject. (The 16th century is not like the 9th, where the number of surviving sources is extremely small and one can do an exhaustive search.) If someone does so, and finds significant coverage, there's no prejudice to an article, but until then a merge seems the best course. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think such an expectation is realistic. In any case, I care not whether it is merged or deleted. Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above merge EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 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 14:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway.com Audience Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

These awards seem to be given by audiences, not any experts in the industry. I am not sure what the notability is for awards given by websites of users, but I assume that the award does not carry that much weight. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These audience voted awards are intended to promote the Broadway.com ticketing website. The awards have some silly categories, such as "Favorite Funny Performance", "Favorite Diva Performance" and "Favorite Long-Running Show" (which Wicked has won about 10 times). They do not have any categories for book, music or any design awards. After the awards are chosen, Broadway.com publicizes them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage of these awards can be found in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Broadway.com. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pills, porn and poker[edit]

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

A lack of notability for this specific term, which is not used in the email spam, messaging spam or spamming articles and does not have any reliable sources in the article itself. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete per nomination. — The Anome (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps OR. Not enough RS available to write this article. Bruxton (talk) 18:18, 23 October 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 nom withdrawn/wp:speedy keep #1. (non-admin closure) Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frode Alfheim[edit]

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

No independent sourcing. A BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything and I also note that his Norwegian article doesn't have any additional sourcing either. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC) withdrawing based on added sources and reasonable belief that more exist, with thanks to Johan. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alfheim leads a trade union with roughly 60000 members; they are a powerful political entity in Norway. If we can save this article, we should do so. I've added new and better sources and expanded the article somewhat; sources exist if one looks at Norwegian results. /Julle (talk) 23:26, 16 October 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. Nom withdrawn/wp:speedy keep #1. (non-admin closure) Alyo (chat·edits) 14:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pobal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. The sources cite Pobal's GIS data, but don't discuss the actual organization in any meaningful way. Not sure of a redirect target. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Coverage by various Irish newspapers would be sufficient for me to consider WP:NONPROFIT met, even without the additional book cites. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not notable? It's a government organisation. Surely that's enough. Ridiculopathy (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ridiculopathy, I believe that per WP:NONPROFIT there still needs to be some evidence of coverage by reliable sources. I could be wrong though--if others feel that the fact that POBAL is a national organization is sufficient, I'll withdraw the nom. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some pretty basic googling would reveal the reliable sources you seek, but I added some on to the page to spare you the bother. Ridiculopathy (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridiculopathy, while I appreciate the work you are putting into the article, only one of the five sources (the Irish Examiner piece) you added would count towards the WP:general notability guideline. The others are non-independent/press releases. Those are the kinds of things I found when searching, which is why I believed it didn't meet notability requirements. Anyway, I'm looking over the sources that @Guliolopez added now and I think I'll probably withdraw this. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not a slam dunk, I've found (and in many cases have added) several academic/book sources (which cover the subject's formation) and a number of news sources (which cover the organisation's purpose, development and oversight). While I'd rather see a book chapter/section dealing entirely with the subject, I'm not sure this is a clear-cut deletion. Certainly the relatively "generic" name (from an Irish perspective) doesn't help with searches. To the extent, I would note, that neither of the previous AfDs (linked above) have anything whatsoever to do with the topic now covered by this title. (This AfD was about a TV show. Not a govt agency. This is a school. Note also that the topic covered at "POBAL" is also unrelated. "Pobal" just means "community" or "people".) Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Guliolopez. It looks like Pobal will live to fight another day. Ridiculopathy (talk) 17:31, 18 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Carrera[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, and WP:NACTOR searched for more information about this as per WP:BEFORE. In the news he attended a play and had his photo taken, was not the focus of the article. Newspaper archive search yielded nothing. Article authors appears to be WP:SPA or at least very close to it. Has won some minor awards at a small film festival but it is not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Article appears to be more promotional in nature.

WP:NARTIST, not signed to a label, work appears to be self published.
WP:NACTOR, minor roles and few credited works.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Cherokee Scout	Local newspaper	~ As per WP:NEWSORG human interest stories are not normal considered reliable	Short interview with Carrera	~ Partial
Cody Carrera	Clip where Carrera asks a question. Uploaded to his own YouTube	Clip where Carrera asks a question. Uploaded to his own YouTube	Carrera is not the main topic	✘ No
FilmFreeway	? Appears to be a film database	Content appears to be on a private self published project	Listed in the credits	✘ No
Cody Carrera	Clip where Carrera is on a panel, uploaded to Carrera's YouTube account	Clip where Carrera is on a panel, uploaded to Carrera's YouTube account	~ Carrera is on a panel but is not the main topic of the panel	✘ No
WorldStarHipHop	Music video on YouTube	Music video on YouTube	Video has nothing to do with Carrera	✘ No
The Christian Best	? Appears to be a christian music news site	~ Appears to be a christian music news site	Sight is about Zach Williams and his music video	✘ No
Digital Jounral	? Hard to tell	~ Authored by a person	Article is about Danny Gokey and their music video	✘ No
NBC Palm Springs	NBC stations normally pass	? Couldn't access the article, got a 404 error	? Couldn't access the article, got a 404 error	? Unknown
Official Latino Short Film Festival	~ Website contains just the basic information about the screening time.	~ Source is factually reliable, I'm sure the screening happened. But it doesn't provide any information about Carrera	Site only says that Carrera directed a music video and it was going to be screened with others at the festival. No other coverage	✘ No
EIN PressWire	Anyone can send out a press release for $99. Link on the site lets you contact the author of the press release and Carrera is listed as the contact along with their phone number.	Coverage was provided by Carrera or someone he knows.	~ The coverage is all about Carrera, but it's also written by Carrera.	✘ No
Cody Carrera	Cody Carrera interviews himself for his YouTube channel	Cody Carrera interviews himself for his YouTube channel	~ Cody Carrera interviews himself for his YouTube channel is at least some kind of coverage	✘ No
Offical Latino Short Film Festival	~ Offical website, as a list this is fine but any other coverage would not be independent	~ Source as a list is reliable	Music video is listed as a winner but there is nothing about Carrera	✘ 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)).

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: did not find any coverage in my search either. QuietHere (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing as a pass of WP:GNG, is WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the article is a reliable source for entertainment interviews. Mostly written by a single author, although some are credited to other authors. Recent interviews with Popternative can easily be found online with notable people like John Stamos and Lucy Hale.

This independent artist has been in notable TV shows and movies, and has also previously released music and music videos that have received award nominations in the Latino community. Wikipedia should not only contain information about mainstream artists, and should not discriminate against artists who are notable/recognized in the Latino entertainment community.

The information in this article is sourced from imdb, interviews and a variety of reliable sources. Writtenbyem (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Writtenbyem If you open up the source table I included you'll see how I score and judged each source. If you see something there that is an error then let us know. It is always possible that I've missed something or misunderstood the source in context. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the source table. The music video references are also referenced in imdb - Mr. Carrera performed in both. The NBC Palm Springs source - I was getting a 404 too, but was able to find the video on youtube and added source. The Latino Short Film Festival source is also reference on Mr. Carrera's personal website, as well as credit on imdb. As an editor and not the original writer of this page, I can't speak to all sources, but can speak to those.

Also, I must state that at a time in the world where independent artists like Billie Eilish and Finneas are clearly notable artists, it seems a bit subjective for us to determine whether or not an artist who remains independent from a label is a 'notable artist'. That said, I understand why you have questions, and have never had to explain why a subject I edited deserved to have a wikipedia page. I just enjoy wikipedia as a resource and enjoy editing/adding info to topics I am knowledgeable about. Writtenbyem (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so for IMDB it has been normally considered an unreliable source as per WP:IMDB so we can't really use it except for a few minor cases. If you take a look at WP:NFILM we normally don't consider film festival pages to be secondary coverage " A film's notability must not, however, depend on sourcing it to the film festivals' own self-published catalogues of their own film lineups; a film can screen at a major film festival and still not attain sufficient notability to qualify for an article.". You don't have to explain or defend anything you're not under attack here. I'm showing you the rules and explaining my thought process behind them. If you believe otherwise that's fine, the most important part of collaborating on Wikipedia is that we make decisions based on consensus, and for me I'm of the mind set that we need to be flexible in how we apply rules. So as people come into this discussion they might have found things I missed, or add additional context.

Part of the nomination process requires that I go out and try to find sources before submitting the nomination. Here's the way I went about searching and trying to find sources to add to the article before I nominated it. I'm not listing this out trying to be a jerk or anything like that, just showing you that I did my due diligence and that this wasn't motivated by external factor or done on a whim.

Checked Google with the search string "Cody Carrera"
Checked Bing with the search string "Cody Carrera"
Google News with the search string "Cody Carrera"
Google News with the search string intitle:"Cody Carrera"
Google News Archive with the search string "Cody Carrera" site:news.google.com/newspapers
Checked Google Books and I did find something but it's not in English and I have no idea what's going on
Checked Google Scholar because I run that by default and there was one citation but I don't think it's Carrera as Cody Carrera is his stage name and mother's maiden name.
Checked for copy right violations and then reviewed the sources that came up there
Reviewed Wikidata and there was data there but none of it has a reference to help me connect it to statements in the article.
Visited Carreras website and social media to see if there was something that might have fallen through the cracks.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Writtenbyem. I believe there's a happy medium between deleting the entire page & updating it or condescending it for the purpose of wikipedia information. There's three reliable sources. 1) A local newspaper article, 2) An interview on NBC (I see the source was updated.) It's a video interview not on Carrera's own YouTube page & 3) An interview with a blog with major celebrities (the Popternaitve article that was added to the sources.)

I suggest focusing the page on Carrera, for example you can remove the part in "Life and career" about the other music video appearances since he wasn't the main subject and it's already in his credits table. I've seen a lot of pages with less sources of people who aren't considered "famous". As I was browsing here are two examples.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rain

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Moseley_(actor)

In the first page the majority of sources are her YouTube channel and the one reliable source from Billboard is a broken link. But no one is deleting her page or questioning her career or contributions. You're also saying because there's not much "news" when googling that the page should be taken down. That runs the risk of discrediting peoples contributions if they aren't constantly in the news cycle (see above examples.) Can someone have success in one year, but have inactive years in their career? Especially in entertainment. DeeDeeKelsey (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE, a.k.a. the "other stuff exists" fallacy. The solution for Mandy Rain and Mark Moseley is to call for those articles to be improved or to make a case that they should be deleted, and someone at WP may very well do so when they get to it. The imperfections of those articles are irrelevant to the discussion of whether Mr. Carrera is notable in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not casting an official vote, because I am not commenting on the subject's writing, directing, or musical career; however, in terms of his acting roles, none of the parts he has played in TV shows or movies could be considered significant for the purposes of WP:NACTOR. And in searching for references, I am not getting any hits with the reliable sources one would expect for actors and actresses—Deadline, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is admittedly a close call, as Carrera has credits and a few news mentions. The sources named by the article's supporters above are brief mentions of Carrera appearing somewhere, and while they may be reliable sources, that is not the end of the story because when someone is mentioned in the media, the coverage still has to be significant in order to achieve the notability that is necessary for a WP article. Otherwise Carrera mostly appears in the lists of credits for things he's been in, though he does have a fair number of those. Charitably, it is too soon for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source assessment is fairly spot on. My search shows the subject has received press either directly or, mostly, tangentially but it's not significant. His website has a press section with clips that suggest his NBC coverage is local television run-of-the-mill interview of a local actor, not the kind of normal coverage that makes for WP:ACTOR qualifications. I can't find anything online to confirm that the Latino Film and Arts Festival is a major thing. Again, his own website seems to reveal it's only of concern to the Palm Beach community. Bottom line, it's TOO SOON. The first thing he's done of note where he is not a secondary player--his debut album--will be released soon and if it's significant it will likely garner significant coverage. I'm not sure if there is a wiki procedure for "holding off to see in a few weeks," but for now it's a delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although some of sources in article are reliable but they should be significant coverage. We can see only passing a mention of subject in sources. Moresdi (talk) 13:07, 21 October 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. Canley (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Eggs[edit]

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

~~Non-notable website. No sources, and the only redirect target to mention this specific product is a single unsourced sentence on Edmentum. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)~~ See below -- Alyo (chat·edits) 21:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and Australia. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete, agree with above Teraplane (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ( NPOV hat removed. My children quite rightfully loathed it ten years ago NPOV hat on). It was originally developed by the ABC and inflicted on most primary school children in Australia OMG [312 cites on Scholar], 650+ newspapers items. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speedy-keep this per @Teraplane's !vote, but I withdraw the nom per the scholar references. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wakelamp. Deus et lex (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on some recently added refs. I do, however, someone would put some more words on the page. Lamona (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I've expanded the page and added some RSs. Meets WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per current sourcing in article. Skynxnex (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Signs & Deadly Sins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, searched for more information about this as per WP:BEFORE and only found the one source that was included in the article not including the artist own website. Artist most likely fails WP:NARTIST, not signed to a label, work appears to be self published. Article author appears to be WP:SPA.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Popternative	Site mentions that it used to be a podcast and is now run by one person	~ No author is listed for the article	~ Interview with nine questions	✘ 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)).

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the page is a reliable source for entertainment interviews. Mostly written by a single author, although some are credited to other authors. Recent interviews with Popternative can easily be found online with notable people like John Stamos and Lucy Hale.

This independent artist has been in notable TV shows and movies, and has also previously released music and music videos that have received award nominations in the Latino community. Wikipedia should not only contain information about mainstream artists, and should not discriminate against artists who are notable/recognized in the Latino entertainment community. Writtenbyem (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is discriminating against this artist, this work fails the notability guidelines. Follow this link and it'll take you the the notability guidelines for musical artists. I've copied part of the page here for you, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything like that, just trying to help show you what I'm talking about. If you find something in that list that I missed let me know and I'll work to remove the nomination.

Copy of guidelines available at WP:NMUSICIAN
Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criterion number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works. (See the self-published sources policy for details about the reliability of such sources, and the conflict of interest policy for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc., does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist. Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. This criterion has been disputed in the past and has been reworded numerous times as a result. Past significant discussions: 2006, 2008. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent, but, for example, being members of the chorus (not prominent) in two Broadway musicals (dozens of people involved) usually wouldn't be enough. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. <Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Copy of guidelines available at WP:NMUSICIAN

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criterion number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works. (See the self-published sources policy for details about the reliability of such sources, and the conflict of interest policy for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc., does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries. What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. except for the following:
  - Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising. For example, endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist.
  - Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
  - Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. This criterion has been disputed in the past and has been reworded numerous times as a result. Past significant discussions: 2006, 2008.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent, but, for example, being members of the chorus (not prominent) in two Broadway musicals (dozens of people involved) usually wouldn't be enough. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
<Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because it looks like the article for Carrera himself might be on the way to deletion too (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Carrera). Otherwise the usual solution is to redirect. Nobody has yet talked about this album other than Mr. Carrera himself. After the album is released, if it picks up pro reviews and other reliable media coverage, then the article can be revived. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per same logic as Doomsdayer. The album releases in ten days so feel free to keep an eye out for new coverage and recreate at that time if such coverage appears, but for now it's definitely too soon. QuietHere (talk) 16:19, 18 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity (TV series)[edit]

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

TOOSOON. None of the sources (all entertainment/gossip sites) even confirm the name of the show. Can be recreated in a few months when there are more details, assuming it goes into production. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the references cited mentions a series by this name, and I can't find any series by Julie Plec online with that name. The poster in the infobox is a poorly Photoshopped "concept poster" created by the article creator. One of the references cited was this fake reference. Could probably be speedied G3 as a hoax. Storchy (talk) 14:10, 17 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lowland Hundred (band)[edit]

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

Not a notable band. Existed 2008-2014. No significant coverage. The name "The Lowland Hundred" refers to a Welsh legend and search for sources must exclude all the hits on the mythological location. WP:BEFORE only finds promo articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBAND by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 07:13, 20 October 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 2024 United States Senate elections. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 United States Senate election in Florida[edit]

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

Far WP:TOOSOON. There is only 1 candidate thus far, the incumbent, and there isn't even very much in the way of speculation. There is almost no coverage of this election yet. Curbon7 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Florida. Curbon7 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other 2024 Senate election races, such as those in Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington, which have pages expanded beyond a redirect despite having less sources than this article. I think this page should be kept. BlueShirtz (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. A cursory look shows those articles are probably also too soon. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States Senate elections. Too soon at this point. Those articles are too. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States Senate elections, per WP:TOOSOON. Agree with Curbon7 and Reywas92 that the other articles mentioned above should be likewise redirected for the same reason. Sal2100 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States Senate elections, if not delete, WP:TOOSOON. Alex-h (talk) 13:26, 19 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sissons Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - No evidence of notability in these articles, either by legal recognition or significant coverage. They all appear to just be named crossroads. –dlthewave ☎ 05:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at over half of the articles and they have only one, at most two, lines and a single reference to USGS names reference. So I will trust that NOM looked at all of these, and therefore they can be deleted as a group, IMO. Lamona (talk) 23:39, 19 October 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. Keep proponents do not put forward a reason as to why the subject is notable Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Khalid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft deleted a few months ago at AfD and then recreated. A special assistant to a minister (a SPAD in UK terms) is not an NPOL pass and this doesn’t look like a GNG pass to me either. Mccapra (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable as he also remained the focal person to ex-PM Imran Khan and held key positions in his party. Muneebll (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What in-depth coverage do we have of this person in multiple reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he is not notable more than focal person of Ex-PM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hyperbolic comets. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C/2000 U5 (LINEAR)[edit]

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

The only coverage is from databases and the discovery announcement in MPEC, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. C messier (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hyperbolic comets, where it is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:59, 18 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edward Jessup[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG No significant coverage about the businessman exists in reliable sources. Lots of single line quotes, but nothing substantial. W 42 15:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. W 42 15:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, only brief quotes about him found. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oaktree b. Nothing in this article speaks to an encyclopedic level of notability. BD2412 T 20:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ProQuest turns up his disqualification for 12 years for submitting false tax returns. Nothing else. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tax fraud isn't exactly notable, unless it's some ground-breaking case. I doubt it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Just mentioned as it's something other than a passing mention or a brief quote. And > nothing. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:28, 21 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Jindal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural renomination, per request; afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dheeraj Jindal closed as redirect, but two of the three participants have been blocked for socking. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not a single notable work of Dhreej that can prove that he is a notable person. He has put the names of some no table people to prove himself notable, this does not prove that Dheeraj is notable person.Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage the establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see how this meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 23 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Liang[edit]

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

There isn't any information from secondary sources about him outside of the Embrace company that he was a part of. Unsure of WP:GNG and his notability appears to be inherited from the org. BriefEdits (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. BriefEdits (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, here are other articles:

https://techcrunch.com/2008/02/14/game-on-zynga-and-sgn-battle-for-social-gaming-developers

https://www.grinnell.edu/about/grinnellprize/winners/embrac Linusliang (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Also, pretty blatant WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION from the primary contributor who has posted an objection above, who is also apparently the subject of the article (which he created himself). —HackerKnownAs (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:GNG of this promotional article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 23 October 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 23:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Dixit[edit]

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

I came across this article today from Marathi wikipedia, where it was created in the form of promotion. Upon a search on internet, and after going through the sources provided in the article, I found out the actor has played only trivial roles.

Despite the Wikipedia article stating the actor has played lead roles, it can't be corroborated. For example, the article says he has a lead role in Aap Ke Aa Jane Se. But he is listed under recurring in Aap Ke Aa Jane Se#Cast.

Rest of the credits are from episodic appearances.

All the sources I could find are puff pieces, interviews, or non reliable sources.

Given the actor does not have multiple significant roles in films/TV shows, he fails notability criteria for actors. The sources covering the actor, even though a lot of sources, are tabloid like gossip sites, interviews, or puff pieces. Because of the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, the actor fails general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After seeing the page and after reading all their news articles, it comes to know that Ashish did not do any work as a lead, so it is not a notable person, whatever work he has done as a side in a movie or web series. Do small roles and every such movie has many actors but all of them may not be notable.Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 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 13:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet S Banga[edit]

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

A great guy with great ideas about how to make the world a better place. Unfortunately fails any number of tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article, including but not limited to WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. As always, please do prove me wrong. Pete AU aka User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 13:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator that this bio fails GNG, a search returns only social media and some similar named people Josey Wales^Parley 13:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. -- EN-Jungwon 13:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any WP:RS coverage. Could also be a speedy delete per WP:G11. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Not notable even can't find any source Contributor008 (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is not a single article to prove that there is another notable person. Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 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. czar 04:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nessly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted twice before on notability concerns, this article still has notability issues for this Atlanta-based rapper. Coverage based on interviews/press junkets is limited. No evidence of enduring impact or widespread success of his music outside Soundcloud. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO; WP:SINGER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of significant coverage can be found. Some of the sources are mentioned:

Sources published in MTV 1 Sources published in HotNewHipHop 2, 3, 4, 5 Sources published in Billboard (magazine) 1 Sources published in XXL (magazine) 1, 2, 3, 4 Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few sentences and references. He's not super-famous but I think there's clearly enough that he should have a Wikipedia article. Lijil (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the added sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources support that WP:MUSICBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:16, 23 October 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 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Badr Al Salim[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Journalist and writer, working in both Iraq and the UAE, article sourced to broken links, Goodreads and subject's own work in newspapers. No evidence of reviews/independent coverage, bluelinked awards or enduring impact. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, News media, and Iraq. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed goodreads and subjects' own work in newspapers, and added reviews from independent sources. Double checked all links and none are broken. What do you mean by bluelinked awards? There is an awards category if that's what you are referring to. Larasabri401 (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator means there are no awards that have their own Wikipedia article. For example the Booker Prize. If an author has received a notable award like this one it may point to notability. That doesn't mean that the lack of one of these awards means the subject is definitely not notable though. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve added one ref and the ar.wiki article I’ve linked it to has RIS. Multiple prize-winning novelist with a substantial body of work. Mccapra (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a WP:BEFORE shows they meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Mccapra. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:15, 23 October 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 13:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netop Remote Control[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertising, already earlier removed and recreated. The Banner talk 11:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are a combination of dead links, trivial mentions, indiscriminate download listings, and sponsored reviews. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE. Also noting that Impero Connect is a copy of the article under a new name with the same problems. - MrOllie (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT as it lacks significant coverage in third-party sources. Also delete Impero Connect, as it is a copy-pasted duplicate of this article that was maybe an attempt at a rename? Either way we can't delete this page's attribution history while keeping that one, and it's the content that fails notability no matter what title it's under. - Aoidh (talk) 08:29, 18 October 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 13:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Drigalev[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer that played part of one cup game as a professional. I found Football.by in a Russian Google search but it's just a small quote from him with no independent analysis. I found this local source which mentions him in passing. Clearly not the depth or level of significance required to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. A Russian language search failed to yield anything decent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:48, 18 October 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 11:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Svyataslaw Bokhan[edit]

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

Created when there was a much lower standard for notability. Current guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC which Bokhan does not seem to meet. Searching in Belarusian yields nothing at all. Searching in Russian yields only his own social media accounts and his blog about coaching children. Given that the content is written by him and not by others about him, it does not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:22, 18 October 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 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

André Afonso[edit]

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

Only played very briefly then disappeared, I can't find any in-depth, detailed coverage of him. Google News has no hits. Outside of that, I found only trivial coverage in Portuguese WP:RS. Sapo and Ojogo are not enough to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Venkateswara Institute of Science & Information Technology[edit]

The page has zero sources and has been created by a WP:SPA. I failed to find independent media coverage. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Education, Schools, Engineering, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 05:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phungus & Mowld[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG -- no reliable sources I could find. Nythar^T^.^C 07:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Nythar^T^.^C 07:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto on the "no sources". Also, from IMDB it appears that this ran as two episodes in one season, and that's all. The article has no references, and has elements of an ad for the show, like links to all of the commercial sources. I suspect that even as an advertisement this article does not serve any purpose, and does not meet a minimal even of GNG. Lamona (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Mironenko[edit]

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

Initial PROD from User:Jogurney was Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. This was removed as article was previously deleted via PROD for the exact same reason. The reason for deletion still seems valid so AfD is the next step.

Best Russian sources I can find on him are Krassever and Vologda News which only mention him once in passing. He looks to fail WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG and would have even failed under the old WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in either of the top two Russian tiers (see WP:FPL). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG based on available online English and Russian language sources. Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hyperbolic comets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C/2003 A2 (Gleason)[edit]

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

The only coverage is from databases and the discovery announcement in CBET, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. C messier (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hyperbolic comets. I only find the discovery bulletin; no significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:40, 17 October 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 08:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Taste of Relation[edit]

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

PROD removed with rationale "remove prod - has some reasonably substantive reviews, shoudl probably go to AfD at minimum."

Let's decide if the reviews are enough to pass WP:NFILM and have the notability tag removed, or if the article should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Donaldd23: The review websites looks iffy. Looking at this, it appears to me that the reviewing guidelines is low, I doubt that reviewers are professional looking at here. This is also a minor festival site. The winning of the California Film Awards gives me pause on deletion. I disagree that it should be considered as especially major to meet WP:NFILM criteria 3. However, it does have a WP article, compare WP:NWEB, which clarifies that when an award has a WP article it should be considered significant. On the contrary, the article for the award is sourced from non-independent refs. So I do agree that the notability here is doubtful, but if it's agreed that the award fails to meet WP:NFILM I would then vote delete. However, I do weakly concur with the deprod- this has some reviews of iffy notability and awards that could go either way, therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that delete is more popular, I'd be happy to change my vote to weak delete. VickKiang (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to directory entries and online stores like Amazon or Best Buy, none of which are support for notability — and the only two sources that are in any way analytical come from sources whose reliability for the purposes of WP:GNG is at best dubious. The rule isn't that film reviews can come from just anywhere — it's that they have to come from reliable sources. And even awards aren't necessarily automatic notability clinchers either — "notability because awards" doesn't indiscriminately attach to just every award that exists, but looks for either (a) top level national film awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, or (b) a narrow tier of internationally prominent film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, TIFF, Sundance, etc.) that get media coverage, and a film cannot accrue notability on the basis of awards that have to be sourced to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage about the award win is nonexistent. That is, in order to make a film notable for winning an award, it is necessary to prove that the award itself is a notable one in the first place, which hasn't been shown by any sources here. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 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 The Opportunities Party. A redirect preserves the content of the article. If he does anything that the media or academics take note of, this article can be restored. But, until then, the consensus has determined that Dennison doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Dennison (politician)[edit]

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

Contested prod which was given no significant content. Subject was elected to what seems to be his first political position - on a local city council - since June 2022 and works on an ambulance. Important jobs but based on what has been presented in article, not wiki worthy. There are people that seem to disagree. BostonMensa (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but per the guidance on WP:Notability, my judgement is this article's subject qualifies as notable because it meets the general notability guideline (GNG) and it is not excluded under WP:NOT.

The article meets the GNG because the topic is addressed in detail, with no original research. The source is a reliable and secondary source, and I, the creator of the article, am not affiliated with the subject. GNG says that an article might still be considered non-notable after discussion about its content, but none of the reasons given by the GNG for an article being non-notable apply. In particular the guidelines in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information do not apply. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician lacks WP:SIGCOV would not meet WP:NPOL requirements. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV - non-notable local politician.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see two claims that the article lacks or fails WP:SIGCOV, but it isn't clear to me what justifies those claims. Agreed that WP:NPOL is not met, but per WP:NPOL "such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Then, consulting WP:SIGCOV, it looks like the GNG requirements are met. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, the question doesn’t solely lie with the amount of coverage or quality. A major newspaper like The New York Times or The Washington Post can write a story about a little lagged team that goes far in the state championship tournament. The team could have something of a human interest angle to it like all the kids come from the local homeless shelter so the roster is always changing yet they still made it to the quarter finals. Heartwarming story but that doesn’t mean the coach or star player deserves a wiki article. The article could ne written again down the road if the subject becomes an athlete say at the Olympic level especially if they medal in their sport but not because they had an ERA of .129 in five little league games when they were ten. BostonMensa (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense as a bunch of claims, but I don't see support for it in WP:SIGCOV. Maybe there are a bunch of unwritten rules on wikipedia about what makes an article significant and in that case I guess I have to defer to more experienced editors. But I have to say, as a general note, it makes it discouraging to contribute if the guidance isn't clear and it's difficult to know before putting work into creating an article whether it passes the unwritten rules or not. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can be difficult to figure out in the beginning but that is why I worded it the way I did. Let’s say you have a chance wrote one new article and only one. Remember that the hypothetical little league story is a human interest story. And I chose that as an analogy to John Dennison. And you have someone in their first ever professional acting role win a major award like best actor for an Oscar, Bafta, etc. and is nominated for several others. Again, you can only write one reticle. Who do you think is more worthy of the article - John Dennison or the first time actor nominated for five acting awards and the winner of one or two of them? BostonMensa (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the three sources in the article, the 1news article has, at best, about 7 sentences about Dennison (less than half the article), and that's including a quote from his party leader saying, “John’s just a great guy and we’re really thrilled he’s been elected.” Stuff mentions Dennison in only one sentence, indicating that he was elected to the community board with 715 votes but with no other information about him. And the other source is his own self-prepared campaign statement, not an independent source. These do not seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV standards even when combined. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Opportunities Party, of which he is the first candidate elected. The board to which he was elected, Featherston Community Board, doesn't even have a Wikipedia article (the town Featherston, New Zealand does, but I don't see a mention of its community board in that article). One of the articles cited here says, "John Dennison, an ambulance driver, got the call last week to say he’d been elected to the Featherston Community Board, which advocates to the South Wairarapa District Council. It’s effectively the lowest rung of New Zealand’s political ladder." Being elected to the lowest political office in one's country is better than not being elected, but it's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article about him, notwithstanding another quote from the same article: "Dennison himself said he was delighted with the achievement, joking, “As the first TOP person to be elected, I am expecting a Wikipedia entry"." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the video news story where he said that. I can’t help but wonder if Curiouskiwicat feels it is funny to do this. Plus, I am having trouble pinning down the exact date of the election but I keep seeing things that make me think it was 10/16/22. BostonMensa (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page the election was held on 8 October 2022. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found it out later and IIRC put it in the article. Whether I did or not, he is still, AFAIK, still not inaugurated. BostonMensa (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Opportunities Party, local politicians are usually not notable; while Dennison has received a single piece of non-routine SIGCOV here in 1News, this is the only such coverage he has received, since the Global Herald piece cited is almost certainly an unreliable source, and the Stuff article is a passing mention. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the first of anything is something I think is worthy of a Wikipedia page and especially if John Dennison ends up playing a larger role in the The Opportunities Party (since he's clearly the most electable). He also won't be the only local politician from New Zealand with a Wikipedia entry and also it's pretty disingenuous to say his achievement doesn't matter because he sits at the "lowest rung of the political ladder," not only because he still has a lot of power relative to you and I; but also because it's just not how politics works half the time. It's not just members of parliament and their lobbyists and mistresses, it's also community board members and their lobbyists and mistresses. Kunanjaada (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ring the first isn’t the issue. The issue is he was elected less than a week before the article was written so he has nothing related to his council job to be discussed. There is no indication of anything wiki worthy he has done in his personal life (ie being the NZ Scrabble champion five of the last ten years) or in his job as an ambulance driver. His election can be mentioned on the TOP page because for them it is notable. But if he does do anything notable as a politician in the future, the article can be rewritten.

Delete or redirect. Local district council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself — the bar for including a local councillor is not "verify that he exists", it's "demonstrate a reason why he should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring importance than most other local councillors". But merely being the first member of his own minor party to win an election is not such a reason in and of itself, and the sourcing here is not mounting a strong case that he would pass WP:GNG — with two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and just three hits of the merely run of the mill coverage that any winner of any election could always show, there isn't enough here to make him a special case over and above other people at the same level of office. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 21 October 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 Chimney Rock National Monument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney Rock, Colorado[edit]

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

The topos show this as a post office, not a town, labelling it as such even in 2013. Since then it has been closed, assuming the zip code given is correct (USPS gives it as a secondary name for two other towns). Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Chimney Rock monument article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep: Just because a town does not have a lot going for it doesn't mean we can delete it. There are so many stub towns on Wikipedia that are just a name, a location, and sometimes a census number. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC) ~~[reply]

I did not realize that this isn't a town. In that case redirect to the other article about the monument. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This isn't a town. The topos label the monument area. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Maps show a "Chimney Rock PO" (post office), not a community. If there's anything worthy of a mention here, it can be covered in the monument article. –dlthewave ☎ 05:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Liang[edit]

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

Fails to meet the requirements for notability. Included source table examining the sources in the article.

WP:NBASIC: Sources are not reliable, not independent, or lack significant coverage
WP:SIGCOV: Sources lack coverage, searched online and in the newspaper archive and could not find anything to support SIGCOV
WP:ANYBIO: Has not won a major award, is not recognized for a major historical event. Closest thing was helping to organize two protests.
WP:NMODEL: Is a model but there is no coverage of it other than his page on agency websites

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
VoyageLA	~ Source appears to be a lifestyle blog for LA. You can submit a story about yourself which I think is what happened here.	Content on the site is mostly puff pieces. This article doesn't have an author attached to it.	Short interview with Liang but kind of unclear about what he's being interviewed for. Is he a model? Does he own a restaurant? He also works for Facebook.	✘ No
Otoo Models	It's a modeling agency looking to book Liang	~ What little information that is there is probably correct	~ Just personal stats and two photos of Liang	✘ No
Look Model Agency	It's a modeling agency looking to book Liang	~ What little information that is there is probably correct	~ Just personal stats and one photo of Liang	✘ No
State Management	It's a modeling agency looking to book Liang	~ What little information that is there is probably correct	~ Just personal stats and one photo of Liang	✘ No
Tasting Table	Has editorial polices, authored by people, content is light but does appear balanced	~ It looks like most of the material on the site and in the article is reliable	Liang is quoted for one sentence. Then there are 11 photos of PokeBowls	✘ No
Authority Magazine, part of Medium	~ The site appears to do a lot of interviews with people, there is a page where you can submit your information and have them interview you.	About section of the website says that they are a Medium publication. As per WP:MEDIUM this source should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.	Long interview with Liang	✘ No
New York Residents Alliance	?	No information on their about page, but the article is probally reliable as it only has Liang's name and a very short bio.	Speaker at a webinar but was not the focus of the event	✘ No
Gothamist (WNYC)	Appears to be a non-profit news site affiliated with WNYC	Appears to be a non-profit news site affiliated with WNYC	Mentions his name once at the end about an upcoming protest	✘ No
Washington Square News	~ Student run newspaper	Content appears to be reliable	Mentions his name once about helping to organize the protest	✘ No
New York Magazine	Appears to be	Content appears to be reliable, but author has only written two articles and they only on this topic	Mentions his name twice about helping to organize the protest	✘ No
New York Post	~ For this article it appears that it was independent but the source has had problems in the past	As per WP:NYPOST this source is generally unreliable	Article is about a protest and quotes Liang briefly twice	✘ No
The Villager	Appears to be independent	Appears to be reliable	Article is about a protest and quotes Liang briefly	✘ No
NextShark	? Looks like a blog and was hard to find information. On WP:RS it's been noted that this source might not be independent or reliable	As per WP:RS this is most likily not a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#NextShark, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381#Next_Shark	Was mentioned once in a list of people who were arrested at a protest	✘ No
The Broadsheet	Appears to be a very fancy blog that looks like a news paper	Appears to be a newspaper but it is run by one man, every article is authored by Mattew Fenton. For an example see the current issue. [[8]]	Was mentioned once in a list of people who were arrested at a protest	✘ No
NextShark	? Looks like a blog and was hard to find information. On WP:RS it's been noted that this source might not be independent or reliable	As per WP:RS this is most likily not a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#NextShark, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381#Next_Shark	Article is about how Liang is one of the founders of GoldenDAO which is a crypto Decentralised Autonomous Organisation	✘ No
Good Morning America	Part of ABC	Reliable but WP:WEIGHT should be taken into account, this source does mostly feel good stories and not hard cutting work.	He is on a list of with a zillion people for Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month	✘ 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)).

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's sources assessment. Semi-promotional article with trivial mentions that fail WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC, or other criteria of WP:NBIO. VickKiang (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and independent WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:20, 16 October 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.