< April 17	April 19 >

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Hammer Music and Management Group[edit]

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

Outside of the Michigan Daily (archive) and AllBusiness.com-hosted Billboard (archive) articles, everything else on page and what I found through my search is only passing mentions. Article also has apparently severe CoI issues and would likely need an overhaul anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Management, and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2007-07 ✗ CSD G11

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2023 (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The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn)‎ . Closing early, all !votes are for keep and nominator agrees to withdraw. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Snow[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from The Miami Herald (via Newspapers.com). It needs one more review to be eligible for article status. The fact that it is Tim Allen's debut film appearance does not make it notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Film Creator (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that a film debut of a well known actor passes WP:NFIC, as "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." Combine that with the Miami Herald review, and I feel it passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 03:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kelley, Bill (1989-04-21). "Drug Story More Like Dirty Slush". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2021-06-30. Retrieved 2023-04-21.
  The film review notes: "Tropical Snow is that bleakest of low-budget entities -- an exploitation B- movie with a social conscience. ... Once Tavo and Marina ally themselves with Oskar, the risks of the trade and their own stupidity quickly bring them to a bad end. Tropical Snow is directed and acted with the sort of solemn incompetence that only the truly untalented can achieve. Even the sex scenes, which are surprisingly explicit, have a sad, desperate quality. Apart from Carradine, the actors are as unconvincing as the film is boring."
2. Coto, Juan Carlos (1989-04-21). "Tropical Snow is topical but simplistic". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The film review notes: " Tropical Snow tells the story of Tavo (Nick Corri) and Marina (Madeleine Stowe), two Colombians who flee poverty in Bogota for the promised land of New York City. The film manages to address anxieties facing illegal aliens, but it doesn't translate them into powerful drama until the last 40 minutes. ... Writer-director Ciro Duran uses pat story conventions early on, and even an offensive cliche -- while Tavo and Marina are strolling through Bogota, two Colombian women slug it out in the street, apparently because hot-blooded Latin spitfires are supposed to do this. ... Tropical Snow owes an obvious debt to El Norte, the 1983 drama about a brother and sister who flee Guatemala for Los Angeles. The new film fails to match its predecessor's poetic strength -- until the end. Though topical, Duran's film sometimes seems as simplistic as the metaphor in his title."
3. Mills, Michael (1989-04-23). "'Tropical' is glum, full of stereotypes". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The film review notes: "Along with the movie's portrayal of hot-blooded Latinos-- every man seems to have only one thing on his mind-- there are other insensitive stereotypes. ... The three leads speak English (except for their peculiar habit of referring to New York as Nuevo York). Everyone else speaks Spanish-- just watch their lips-- that is overdubbed with English. The effect is disorienting. The best thing about Tropical Snow is that it's beautifully photographed. Eduardo Serra's cinematography gives everything, even the hillside shanty towns, a tarnished glow. This Bogota doesn't look like such a bad place, and that odd detail works at cross-purposes to the story."
4. Lent (1989-10-18). "Tropical Snow". Variety. Vol. 337, no. 1. p. 30. ProQuest 1286063343.
  The film review notes: "In view of Colombia's war on local druglords, tropical becomes topical in this sluggish "exposé" on cocaine smuggling, helmed by Colombian filmmaker Ciro Duran. ... Tech credits are okay with attention paid to sleazy barroom atmosphere and hazy Bogota streets. Acting is also all right. Abundant nudity may hinder tv sales, which seems like the most obvious market, especially with current media focus on Colombia's cocaine connection. -Lent."
5. Richard Jr., Alfred Charles (1994). Contemporary Hollywood's Negative Hispanic Image: An Interpretive Filmography, 1956–1993. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. p. 481. ISBN 0-313-28841-0. ISSN 0742-6933. Retrieved 2023-04-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Seen as a "topical" entry because the US and Colombia fought the cartels together, Cird Duran produced the saga of cocaine smuggling shot in Bogota. Noting that this was a fictitious story, it also claimed to be an everyday occurrence. Focused on two attractive youths who spend much screen time enjoying each other's bodies, they dream of going to the US to earn dollars for themselves and their families. Unable to obtain a tourist visa, a drug dealer promises them one if they will simply carry some cocaine to JFK airport for them. The scenes are graphic, boy and girl are made to swallow over a hundred units of the drug fitted into the cut finger of surgical rubber gloves. A gruesome process at best, they must pass the material within twenty-four hours of they will die. The handsome boy does, his girl serves time in a US prison, then is returned to Colombia."
6. Nowlan, Robert A.; Nowlan, Gwendolyn Wright (1991). The Films of the Eighties: A Complete, Qualitative Filmography to Over 3400 Feature-Length English Language Films, Theatrical and Video-Only, Released Between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 1989. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 597. ISBN 0-89950-560-0. Retrieved 2023-04-21.
  The book notes: "In view of Colombia's attempted crackdown on druglords, this movie filmed in Bogotá and Barranquilla in 1986 is at least timely. Colombian couple Nick Corri and Madeleine Stowe want to leave their country for New York to find a better life. They are offered free passage by David Carradine if they will do him a little favor — smuggle a lot of cocaine into the States."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tropical Snow to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work to Cunard. Based on the coverage I’ve seen from above, I therefore withdraw the nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per analysis by Cunard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agletarang (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cinta yang tak Sederhana[edit]

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

Apart from being a disputed draftification, this TV series is only referenced by TV listings/TV gossip column style material, none of which are useful. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 22:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 18 April 2023 (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 Bizarrap discography#2022–2023. ✗plicit 00:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arcangel: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 54[edit]

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

Bold Redirect was objected to. Fails GNG and NSONG. Sources in article are a single promo and 3 primary (youtube, lyrics). BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. There is no material that can be properly sourced (all promo) and merged. No objection if a consensus forms for a redirect after delete. // Timothy :: talk 18:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bizarrap discography#2022–2023 and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Himmer Ariel. ItsMario97 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bizarrap discography#2022–2023, where the song is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:38, 25 April 2023 (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 23:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Aleixo (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Since this disambiguation page consists of only the primary topic and the subsidiary topic, it should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. Even the hatnote atop the primary topic, Dom Aleixo, points to the subsidiary topic, not to the dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1943 Massachusetts State Aggies football team[edit]

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

Nonexistent football seasons cancelled during World War II. Lack sourcing. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they both relate to nonexistent seasons that fail GNG and NSEASONS:

Delete per nom. Moreover, the articles only mislead readers into thinking that said seasons existed for this school. --MuZemike 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Massachusetts State Aggies football UMass Minutemen football as an ATD. Lacks standalone notability. Frank Anchor 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modified to avoid a double-redirect. Frank Anchor 12:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd be fine with a redirect, but it would be a break from precedent with respect to WWII teams on hiatus. There were about 150 teams that suspended play and did not field teams during all or part of WWII. See here. Our general practice has been not to create redirect for teams that never existed due to the war. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete. I was unaware of this precedent. Frank Anchor 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should 1917 Massachusetts Aggies football team and 1918 Massachusetts Aggies football team be added here as well? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch but I'm not sure about changing the scope when this has been open a few days already. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sure the redirects are needed or meaningful. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it's theoretically possible that something that never happened might have attracted enough coverage for an article by virtue of never happening, there's no evidence of that here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring principle[edit]

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

I have no idea what this is or what the unifying principle is but it sure seems like WP:OR to me. WP:BEFORE search was unsurprisingly all over the place with things that seem unrelated to whatever this is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, incomprehensible article created in 2008. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, that's a mess. It's beyond salvaging; there's no coherent topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The principles of RADAR, SONAR and similar systems are included in their respective articles. This is not only unsourced, but entirely superfluous. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2023 (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 Goodbye Volcano High. – Joe (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snoot Game[edit]

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

I'll place my original PROD reason here as I believe it's still valid.

I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards Goodbye Volcano High. Therefore I believe that keeping this topic as just a mention in GVH's article is enough.

My original PROD was endorsed twice: once by Zxcvbnm mentioning that it fails WP:GNG which I agree with, and once more by QuicoleJR mentioning that there is no significant coverage, which I also agree with.

The PROD was contested six days after the original proposition by User:CJ-Moki, the author of the article, citing an inconclusive discussion on the talk page. I believe that this article should be deleted because there is zero coverage ‘‘about’’ it. There is only coverage about its controversy regarding the game that it is parodying, and therefore it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Galo223344 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Goodbye Volcano High, I believe coverage of the controversy in question is perhaps notable enough for a subsection on the Goodbye Volcano High page. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, any mention of Snoot Game in GVH’s article has been reverted for one reason or another, so it'd have to be discussed on it's talk page. Galo223344 (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Goodbye Volcano High as WP:ATD, but it very clearly and obviously fails WP:GNG for its own page. WP:NOTCENSORED so at the very least it should have a (named) mention due to the Kotaku article, despite being highly controversial. Semi-protection may be needed to keep it from being removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Goodbye Volcano High, makes sense to mention there, but not independently notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not notable enough for its own page, and I don't feel it's even notable for Goodbye Volcano High, so a merge is unnecessary. The "event" was a small troll campaign that barely got any attention outside of 4chan and the game's fandom, resulting in one Kotaku article. Per WP:DUE, there's no point over-inflating the importance of that troll campaign by adding it to the article about the game. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 3 different (non-cross-referencing) sources mentioning Snoot Game by name in relation to Goodbye Volcano High.

https://eip.gg/news/goodbye-volcano-high-visual-novels-pax/

https://www.canardpc.com/jeu-video/a-venir-jeu-video/goodbye-volcano-high-2/

https://kotaku.com/goodbye-volcano-high-ko_op-snoot-game-4chan-ps4-ps5-1849731598

And here are 3 more that reference the Kotaku article

https://www.queerty.com/despite-years-long-troll-campaign-lgbtq-developers-keep-creating-super-queer-video-game-20221106

https://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/altright-game-steals-assets-from-lgbtq-indie-title/news-story/da0b481f22f8b32d01a97ce4ca5d222d

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/07/goodbye-volcano-high-snoot-game-4chan/

I'd say that this alone warrants at the very least a mention in the article (Now sure if an entire section, but still).

But going more informally:

If you search for Goodbye Volcano High in Google, the first autocomplete suggestions include "Goodbye Volcano High 4chan" and "Goodbye Volcano High Snoot Game", if you search on Youtube "Goodbye Volcano High" and sort by popularity out of the first 4 results, two of them are about Snoot Game, the 8th one being Snoot Game's trailer.

This shows that at the very least there is a little bit of relevance about Snoot Game in relation to Goodbye Volcano High. Galo223344 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The EIP.gg article barely touches on the topic, even noting I am not going to give Snoot Game more coverage than it is worth.

I cannot comment on the CanardPC link, as I do not speak French and it appears to be paywalled.

Other articles referencing the Kotaku article don't strike me as persuasive, just that other outlets are pointing out Kotaku's work.

And we don't go by Google Search completion results, so that's a non-starter. Overall, I still don't see that there's enough relevant content here to require a merge.

Here's the crux of my argument: this was a flash-in-the pan trolling campaign by 4chan (which are a dime a dozen), and which did not create enough interest outside of the game's fandom to be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. Placing this into the article is giving far too much weight to an event which had no real impact on the game's development, and didn't cause much more than a ripple around its marketing.

Maybe after this is deleted we could discuss a single-sentence mention of the campaign in the game's article, but that's a matter for Talk:Goodbye Volcano High. There's no need to merge in anything from this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. The CanardPC article used to be free, you can read it here [1] Galo223344 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying things like "it is not worth covering" indicates wanting to WP:CENSOR the article to protect the original game, which is understandable but doesn't factor into Wikipedia policy at all. WP:UNDUE is based on something's relative coverage in reliable sources, and there is an entire large Kotaku article, as well as mentions elsewhere, linking the two games. If RS believed it to be small and not worth noting, they would probably have ignored it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 25 April 2023 (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 . – Joe (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Allison Gardner Little[edit]

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

Student editor who refuses draftification and moved it over AfC decline. Could possibly be merged, but I don't think that will accomplish class goals, so we're here. Star Mississippi 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Star Mississippi 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed): as you apper to be working with this class. Can you help? Star Mississippi 22:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Little is mentioned as a Sigma Gamma Rho founder in The AJC in 2022, and her obituary is published by the LAT in 1992. A Butler University archive description states she "was one of the seven founding members of Sigma Gamma Rho and is considered the sorority's primary founder." Local news reports Butler University has a monument to the founders; the school paper reported honorary degrees for the founders in 2022; EBONY also reports this along with other historical events for the sorority. Beccaynr (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of why I think she should be merged. One of the founders is of significant history, but I don't think it's enough for standalone. Star Mississippi 23:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't accessed the WP Library yet to check the Journal of Southern History reference, but Gregory S. Parks and Caryn Neumann, Lifting as They Climb: Race, Sorority, and African American Uplift in the 20th Century, 27 Hastings Women's L.J. 109 (2016) includes biographical information for Little (along with other founders) in fn 13; the law review could also support content in the Sigma Gamma Rho and Zeta Phi Beta articles.

From my view, it seems possible to create a Founders section in the Sigma Gamma Rho article (perhaps as a subsection in the History section), with biographies of the founders, and Little listed first based on her being considered the primary founder, being listed first in a variety of sources, and having a sorority award named after her. Beccaynr (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would make total sense to me. I don't know about the sorority award or honoree degrees, but that could be handled editorially. I guess my question is what these students are expected to deliver to meet their assignment. Of course folks could find more , I'm just saying what if/do they need a full "article" for their professors, which is where I hope Wiki Ed folks can help Star Mississippi 02:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A book now generally cited in the article, Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century (University of Kentucky Press, 2008) has a full page biography of Little at p. 127 (which notes Little wrote the sorority pledge) and at pp. 125 - 126 includes contextual history of the sorority (the chapter is titled "Seven Schoolteachers Challenge the Klan"), and at pp. 128 - 133, biographical information of other founders, as well as further context and history about the sorority at pp. 133 - 134. I would also like to hear from Wiki Ed folks, because I think there is potential for expansion at Sigma Gamma Rho that could make inclusion of concise biographies for Little and other founders WP:DUE per WP:BIO1E. Beccaynr (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, this might be good as with band members bios in groups like Meg and Dia, or cast members for a single television series. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I found two books that provide a short (full page) biography, so she at least meets WP:BASIC. I made improvements to the article before !voting. I only said "weak" because I don't have time to check how robust my !vote is, but I should maybe just have said "keep". CT55555(talk) 02:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sigma Gamma Rho as ((R from founder)) until it is clear she has independent notability from the sorority's foundation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parks (cited in the article) includes a page length biography. McClure (also cited) notes that the sorority was her "brain child." Also see the sources provided by User:Beccaynr in the comment above. I think establishing one of the "divine nine" and having secondary sources stating that fact, is sufficient for notability. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Leaning merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE, which includes: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Our notability guideline is a broader consideration than WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and includes context and what may best help readers. For this subject, she is known for her work with others to found the sorority, and secondary sources seem to present them as a group with similar depth of biographical information and context; for example, they have the same historical context, have been honored with a monument, and were awarded honorary degrees. While there are details that distinguish Little's role as a primary founder, drafter of the pledge, first president, etc, I think developing a Founders section or subsection in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article, along with adding relevant content to other parts of that article, provides the most contextual understanding of the topics, and per WP:SUMMARY, it may eventually make sense to create a standalone article for the founders, with a link and a summary paragraph in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article. For now, the content would first need to be developed to assess how to proceed. From my view, a permanent stub for Little is less helpful for readers than a redirect to an article with contextual significance. Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; subject was president and founder of a national organization still in existence. Article has been somewhat improved since nomination (has an image now). Penny Richards (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been established in the above discussion per WP:GNG, and because many editors have helped improve the article, which was in poor shape at the time it was nominated for deletion and was clearly moved into mainspace prematurely. The main debate now seems to be whether or not this article should be merged into Sigma Gamma Rho, or if it's deserving of a standalone article. In the past, I have been skeptical about whether sorority founders really deserve their own standalone Wikipedia articles, but in this particular case, this is a huge international sorority with a history of over 100 years, and the primary founder who was the first president, wrote the pledge, and has the biennial award named after her, whose founding story is significant in historical context and who remained involved in sorority activities through much of her life, seems justified. (And equally, that founding story and the biographical history of the founders is a big enough topic that trying to cram it all into the main sorority page would probably be disproportionate relative to the rest of the history of the sorority, which is significant.) That said, it is indeed the case that the original founders as a group are known as the "Seven Pearls of Sigma Gamma Rho" and have coverage as a group (although it seems Mary Lou Allison (Gardner) (Little) had the most and is also recognized separately), so I would not be opposed if other members of this WikiEd course at Allen University (or other editors) were to decide to expand this article to include all seven founders; at that point, we could use redirects with the individual founder names to redirect to the Seven Pearls of Sigma Gamma Rho page. But right now, that article content does not exist, so it's fine to keep the Mary Lou Allison (Gardner Little) article as is. Cc: Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed) and course instructor Kazooch. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Anthony Starr[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is sourced only to a database and promo interview. Fails BLP, GNG, BIO. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Duarte[edit]

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

Badminton player with no claim to meeting WP:NBAD and no evidence of passing WP:GNG. According to BWF she has never won a match on the tour and has a win-loss of 0/8 having not played since 2018, which gives me little confidence that future notability is likely. I found a trivial mention of her in Radio Havana and Escambray but this type of coverage doesn't meet GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source online was a trivial mention about another person of the same name, which is a criminal. Otherwise zero coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None is present in the article and none has been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP,fails BIO and GNG. Source in article is stats, BEFORE showed mentions, stats, but nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 05:53, 23 April 2023 (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 . – Joe (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimist International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable organization. I can find no secondary sourcing that does anything more than mention the club. There are two books on the topic, but one is for sure published by the organization itself, and the other seems to be. Update: I just saw the first AfD, where I found no actual evidence of notability, except for one minor article. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Kentucky, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may need work, but the organisation is significant, see e.g. this [2] dml (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:THREE: [3] [4] [5]. Article definitely needs a solid cleanup though! Merko (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2023 (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 Yusufzai#Subtribes. ✗plicit 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Degankhel[edit]

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

Currently unsourced, and I can find no reliable sources. The tribe may exist, but it certainly appears to fail WP:GNG. If reliable sources can be found, I would suggest merging with Pashtun. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pashtuns or Yusufzai. This article's template at the bottom shows that Degankhel is a sub-tribe of the larger Yusufzai tribe...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yusufzai (or Pashtuns if there is a consensus for this target) per above, lacks sources for a standalone article. // Timothy :: talk 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with redirecting to Yusufzai instead of Pashtuns. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yusufzai#Subtribes where the sub-tribe is listed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorandom index generator[edit]

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

Article seems to be created with purpose of promotion of “Miller Shuffle Algorithm” presented in the only source cited. A web search suggests there is no systematic use of the term “Pseudorandom index generator” outside of that source and connected pages (WP:NOR). Moreover, the username of the article's author coincides with the username of the corresponding github page [6] (WP:SELFPROMOTE). Nikita Medved (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the general concept nor the specific algorithm are referenced to a reliable source, and WP is not the appropriate forum for original research. Hqb (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aintabli (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A section on General Concept including a specific algorithm instance has been added.(User: RondeSC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RondeSC (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE only returns a handful of entries in known predatory journals such as WASET as well as one self-published book. The lone source (Hackaday) used in the Wikipedia article does not even mention the concept of a PRIG, and even if this subject did pass muster for notability (it does not), I would be wholly in favor of WP:TNT, as literally the entire article constitutes original research. Is there a vote for 'Move to Wikibooks'? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny McNulty[edit]

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

Was a recurring character (not main cast) in two notable television shows. However, notability is not inherited. What little coverage I can find is either not significant, not independant, or from an unreliable source. Due to his recent guest appearance on a podcast, there has been some recent articles about McNulty, however they mostly just quote him and summarize what he said. -- Mike 🗩 18:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:GNG. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 18:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond articles confirming he was returning as a cast member in the sequel, there are not articles about him. His role was bit part regardless, so not at ACTOR nor GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable actor in multiple network series. Well-known to millions. Megainek (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source in article is an promo, and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 06:13, 23 April 2023 (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 00:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Henderson Kelly[edit]

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

Another contested prod without improvement. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Arizona. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only thing I can find is this very passing coverage.^[1] Not many citations of any of his works. Keep I'm convinced by the sources added by David Eppstein. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC); edited 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cultural_Negotiations/Yh3RDwAAQBAJ

Keep – True the article needs de-stubbing improvements. But the Tombstone Epitaph editorship and contributions to Arizona anthropology are noteworthy enough to endow him with WP-Notability. Moreover, this is a very new article from a very new Wikipedia editor. A deletion is not the best way to encourage editor participation. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)19:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I'm not seeing GNG or the supposed WP:NACADEMIC pass. I'd be happy to change my mind if anyone can find evidence of either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps these results will help. Let's supply our new WP editor with resources and guidance rather then a 'slap-down-your-very-first-article' got deleted. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a keep it is. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found and added to the article five published reviews of three books (one edited). I think it's borderline but enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: does that guideline apply to nonfiction writers? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it? There is nothing in it restricting it to fiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrading my opinion to keep after finding significant coverage of his newspaper and academic work in published articles by Brinegar and McGuire. I think those two sources bring WP:GNG into play as well as WP:AUTHOR. (I also added another published source by Elliott, Wild, and Dinges, but I don't think it has enough depth of coverage of Kelly to count for much.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It applies even to journalists! The important thing is the "significant or well-known work or collective body of work", whatever that work happens to be. -- asilvering (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Having a collection of papers kept by the Arizona State Museum and University of Arizona is usually a signifier of notability, although not automatic. But I found the same five reviews of books that David Eppstein did, and believe the WP:NAUTHOR case. I'm not seeing the citations I'd look for with WP:NPROF, but this is not unusual in a "book field". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the reviews: we often use "multiple reviews of multiple books" as a rule of thumb for WP:NAUTHOR, but what that is supposed to be getting at is "multiple notable works" (so better to have an author article than several stubs on books) or, in the actual words of WP:NAUTHOR, either regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors or created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But these reviews actually show the contrary: for the one book that has three reviews, two of them criticize it for being unuseful - which does rather explain the low citation counts. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant or well-known are not the same as useful. Which is to say that, for me at least, the depth of coverage of a review is relevant, but whether it concludes with a positive or negative verdict is not. All three of these reviews have significant depth of coverage. If you're looking for other evidence of whether the book became significant or well-known, you might also observe that it has triple-digit citations on Google Scholar, high for this sort of topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not the negative verdict that is the concern, it's the implication that this isn't really a significant body of work. But I don't think we need to show a standard author/prof pass here anyway, given the newspaper stuff you found. I'm confident there would be more coverage in historical newspapers as well. -- asilvering (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the reviews and especially due to coverage of Kelly in articles by Brinegar and McGuire. --Mvqr (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added to article. // Timothy :: talk 06:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another contested prod without improvement. Editors really should understand what "uncontroversial" means. By rights, no article that has been prodded should even have a chance of being kept if taken to AfD. Prodding is not a way to get around taking a possibly notable article to AfD, which is what some editors seem to see it as. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 2 (American series)[edit]

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

Believe it goes against WP:NALBUMS 1keyhole (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a top three album and I see no reason this article should be deleted. Standard NOW series article. Nate • (chatter) 18:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Would be nice if there was more than just the AllMusic review, but regardless, the charting and double platinum cert alone should be enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above 2 comments. Releases of this caliber are going to have coverage out there somewhere - it's unrealistic to suggest otherwise. This article needs improvement, not deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 18 April 2023 (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 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis A. Cornell[edit]

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

This seems to be another run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge, with a two-line, one-non-independently sourced, resume-like article. BD2412 T 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. BD2412 T 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2023 (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 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M. York[edit]

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

This seems to be another run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge. Not a statewide office, and nothing more than typical local judicial offices. Being presiding judge of a municipal court is not an office of encyclopedic significance. BD2412 T 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. BD2412 T 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Premier League[edit]

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

No evidence that this regional league passes WP:GNG. Even if it did, this article is utter junk (it lists an auction in 2017, despite apparently being founded in 2009, and defunct that year too according to List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India) and should be deleted per WP:TNT Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, India, and Maharashtra. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, could not find sources which clearly confirms the dates of the seasons, and the existence of this league. RoboCric (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Looks to fail WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arid García[edit]

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

As I've listed on the talk page, the sources are either from the subject's own website or company, or have only brief mentions of the subject's name. I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:BIO. John of Reading (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Venezuela. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. Aintabli (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created over ten years ago by a SPA, which has not edited again over all that time. I have looked after sources as a Spanish speaker, and failed to see anything that would allow this to meet WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2023 (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 23:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline M. Arroyo[edit]

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

One-line biography of a seemingly run-of-the-mill state court trial judge. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. BD2412 T 15:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find only one news article of a passing mention and this fails GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2023 (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 23:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard W. Abbe[edit]

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

This also seems like a run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge. Not a statewide office, and nothing in the subject's short resume-like article to indicate encyclopedic notability. He was born, served in the war, got an education, was a deputy attorney general (but not actually attorney general of the state), was district attorney of a county, served on regional trial and appellate courts, retired, and died. He had a famous sister. That's all there seems to be to say. BD2412 T 15:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. BD2412 T 15:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apsley Business School - London[edit]

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with heavy reliance on primary(-associated) sources. (Also a possible diploma mill...) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Austria, France, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, England, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we have some exemption for degree granting at that level in a specialized subguideline (I recall something like this might have been a thing a while back). But outside such slightly possible exception, I concur with the nom that notabilty is not shown. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as per nom. I would agree with possibly being a diploma mill. Even this diff ^[1] in 2018 called it fake. Companies House reports it has assets of £100, so not even a successful diploma mill if it is one. Claims to be founded in 2012, but company was only incorporated in 2018. I call fake. Equine-man (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been two companies with this name 08330372 which ran from 13 December 2012 - 26 June 2018 and 11517526 incorporated on 14 August 2018. The article was created on 11 May 2015 about the first company. The second company is filing "Micro company accounts" which screams non-notable. Cabayi (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Barclay[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage of the author to pass WP:GNG. Plenty of sites list him and his books like a bibliography and a few have a couple of sentences about the author but nothing coming close to "significant coverage."

There are reviews of his stories/books but nothing that would qualify for any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a ton of work but the citations already listed prove notability with multiple reviews of his works in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal and the listing in Gale's Contemporary Authors. However, the citations already in the article barely scratch the surface of what's out there. A quick search turned up a ton more reviews of this author's work in places like Booklist, The Bookseller, Midwest Book Review, and many other places. And one review I found in The Bookseller, which I've now added to the article, called Barclay "One of the UK's most popular genre fantasy authors." As it states at WP:AUTHOR, notability is proved is a person "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Barclay easily meets this standard with his collective body of work as proved by being the subject of multiple reviews.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed with SouthernNights - article needs improvement (and some advances have been made) but multiple reviews of Barclays works means article meets WP:AUTHOR#3. ResonantDis_tortion 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep as totally meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Plenty of reviews there. I've yet to see a writer in Contemporary Authors who doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Funny I wasn't pinged when I was heavily editing the article at the time of nomination to clean it up a bit. Shrug. Other articles related to the author are better candidates for nomination. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2023 (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 rough consensus seems to be that even if this is a hoax, it's a notable one. – Joe (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Bartlett[edit]

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

This article is filled with unreliable sources. References one & five are tabloids, reference six is a YouTube video, & reference seven is a blog. The only reliables ones seem to be Buckrail (2 & 4) & "Only in your state (3)." It's also suspicious that there are no newspaper articles of this individual from 1868, when she was arrested. I've looked on Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, & the Times digital archive, & I've found nothing. The only sources are from 100+ years after her alleged capture. It seems like a hoax. Silent-Rains (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Wyoming. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a WP:HOAX but it may be a WP:NHOAX. I see lots of references to Polly Bartlett on GBooks. The article may need to be pruned back considerably, though. pburka (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble finding "lots of references" on GBooks. I've found three mentions on GBooks. Number one is The writer Volume 94, where less than a sentence is dedicated to her; number two is America's Historic Places: An Illustrated Guide to Our Country's Past, Volume 2, which also contains only a brief mention; and last is Crime Buff's Guide to the Outlaw Rockies, where less than a page is dedicated to her. None of this is significant coverage, only brief, trivial mentions. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A full page in the Crime Buff's Guide is certainly sigcov, and she seems to be discussed in Peter Vronsky's Female Serial Killers, too, but the full text isn't available on line. I also found a story in The Wyoming Tribune Eagle. While many of the sources currently in the article are poor, some are acceptable, such as the KWYY story and probably the Buckrail one. pburka (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
half a page, not an entire page, in the Crime Buff's Guide mentions her. I have checked Peter Vronsky's Female Serial Killers too, and she is not mentioned in it. For some reason, that book pops up when you look up nearly any female serial killer, even if they are not mentioned in the book. I find it odd. Silent-Rains (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator of the page here. Bartlett's extremely difficult to find resources on because she's essentially a highly unrecognized outlaw figure from the Rockies. It's easier to find her on serial killer lists than Wyoming history. But she's an important part of more macabre and sinister state history, and local Wyoming communities still remember her. "Slaughterhouse Gulch" is only a semi-obscure tourist attraction today, but records are still present as far back as Bartlett's Inn. The only caveat is she's the inspiration for crime show murderers, and I can't prove it for sure. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any insight as to why no newspapers referenced her when she was arrested, & why information about her was only supposedly discovered about 100 years after her death, and why the first newspaper that mentioned her cites no sources as to where it got its information from? Silent-Rains (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for replying late. Honestly, I'm sure it must've been a hot report back then, but a crime that atrocious? An outlaw who was an early serial killer in a territory that wasn't a state. My conjecture is it was willingly disregarded and forgotten so people would move on, not be scared or ashamed of such history. Records must be getting more recognition to archive them, and with serial killer fanbases and outlaw fiction cultures, of course Bartlett would get attention. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's far more likely that she was invented in 1963 to sell copies of Real West magazine. Regardless, the story has been repeated enough to become notable. pburka (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for that, but there's plenty of real photos to show she was real. Thanks for the vote regardless, I already lost one article, I'm glad to keep this one since it's important for information and education. Even if she's spoken of like a sultry outlaw throughout history. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having been the first serial killer in Wyoming, before it was even incorporated as a state, and killing 22 people is VERY infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any questions, reservations, etc.? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to mention me in code under my username so I get an alert. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk • contribs)
Keep Real or not, with the sources provided it seems to make the cut. Pladica (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (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 Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm. ✗plicit 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomuseum of Cocoa[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. First source is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can't find any reference to a "Tikal Cacao Plantation", but there seems to be a Ecomuseum of Cocoa at the Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm.^[2] Maybe move to Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Museums and libraries, and Ghana. AllyD (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ecomuseum of citogenesis, more like. I did find a reference to Tikal, but in an 2020 article that paraphrased this WP article. Everything else is WP derived, other than a UN report which mentions a totally different museum. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that was sarcasm I gather. I went and looked up "citogenesis", which per Wiktionary is Wikipedia jargon: citogenesis (uncountable). (informal, Wikimedia jargon) A circular form of citation where various sources report each other." --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tikal Cacao Plantation" seems to be a red herring sourced to an unreliable source and inserted into the article a few years after it was created. This was clearly created in reference to the place also known as "Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm" covered in the obviously-not-citogenesis book published by Taylor & Francis in 2011. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep. Maybe the article has been edited now? It doesn't appear to suffer from what is asserted above. It seems to be a museum, a public attraction, and the reasoning in essay (to which i contributed) wp:ITSAMUSEUM / wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION applies. I don't see reason to completely distrust travel accounts such as:

ECO-CHOCOLATE MUSEUM NEAR UXMAL RUINS- THE CHOCO-STORY, dated 27 FEB 2018, and
Cacao Museum/ Ecomuseo del Cacao, a webpage of "EcoTourism Yucatan", which supports (is perhaps in effect a for-profit travel agency) ecotourism in the Yucatan, see their "About" page
CACAO ECOMUSEUM YUCATAN MEXICO, a 6:01 minute youtube video that shows a museum with exhibits and interpretive plaques
Making Cacao Drink At The Eco Museum of Cocao Yucatan, a Youtube video in Spanish of "For 91 Days Travel Blog"

It seems to be a legitimate thing, or to have been one (and once notable always notable), and by ITSAMUSEUM we should keep it. To include credible touristy-type information about what's there and why to visit it (but not museum opening times like is disallowed by wp:DIRECTORY), and to allow accumulation of other reliable information on this topic. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that the original article is for an ecomuseum in Ghana. The later additions and the sources that you present here are for an ecomuseum in Mexico ... SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Ghana article only. Significant coverage as per 4meter4 qualifies under WP:GNG. But don't make an article about an ecomuseum in Yucatan, Mexico, because it's just a promotion for the cocoa plantation that it's part of.BruceThomson(talk) 07:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Tetteh Quarshie. There is some significant coverage of the farm (established by Tetteh Quarshie) and museum and its history in Alex B. Aside and Tometi K. Gbedema (2011). "The nexus between agriculture and tourism in Ghana". In Janet Henshall Momsen, Rebecca Maria Torres (ed.). Tourism and Agriculture: New Geographies of Consumption, Production and Rural Restructuring. Taylor & Francis. p. 33-36..4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be a museum about Ghana, or Mexico, or a dab if both are notable? It us unclear whether consensus on the latter has been established
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one last spin
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and move to Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm. This passes WP:GNG per the source identified by Phil_Bridger (talk · contribs) and the coverage of the farm in the Ghanaian national press. I have added these sources to the article and updated it. The ecomuseum in Mexico is not notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the newly-created Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm. If someone wants to write about the museum in Mexico they can start a new article. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm. Striking previous keep vote and reverting changes to this article in favour of creating a new article. It seems that there is more than one site that is known as an 'Ecomuseum of Cocoa' in Ghana. The site at Mfuom, in the central region, established in 2007 and described in this article (and here) is not notable. The Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm, in Akuapim-Mampong which is also called an 'Ecomuseum of Cocoa' does seem to be notable and so I have created a new article for this. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to newly created Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm. I have struck out my original comments above. BruceThomson (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetteh Quarshie cocoa farm per above. // Timothy :: talk 06:20, 23 April 2023 (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 Niklas Sundin. ✗plicit 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin Fever Media[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG ~T P W 14:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 14:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Niklas Sundin: A primary-sourced article on a musician's business providing graphic design for his own and others' projects. No evidence provided or found to demonstrate attained notability in its own right. A redirect is an option, though it is worth noting similarly-named companies in Australia and the US. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think redirecting to Sundin's article is a good idea, given the existence of other companies with similar names. As for this one, it does not meet the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY due to a lack of independent coverage of its history and operations. It can be mentioned briefly at Sundin's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niklas Sundin per above. Subject is not notable apart from target. Unneeded CFORK, only serves to make readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 06:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niklas Sundin per ATD, this topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'd be happy with a redirect to Niklas Sundin. Don't believe it meets the requirements at WP:NCOMPANY due to a lack of independent coverage, to remain a standalone article. Equine-man (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (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 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PVS (project)[edit]

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

This article appears to be about an education initiative in Brazil. It is sourced only to what appears to be a press release The link is dead but an archive is available. The article itself is very poorly written as it appears to have been edited by editors with insufficient English language capability. My own searches for sourcing is hampered by having to rely on machine translation of Portuguese, but what I can find are just enrolment announcements. This project does not meet notability. Whpq (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Material in article largely unsourced. Source in article and BEFORE are promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 06:38, 23 April 2023 (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 23:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dewi (2019 TV series)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth

Source eval:

Promo event :: 1. "Pemain dan Kru Sinetron Dewi Gelar Syukuran dengan Anak Yatim". iNews.ID (in Indonesian). November 18, 2019. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
Promo announcement :: 2. ^ "Sinetron Dewi RCTI: Ada Ririn Dwi Ariyanti dan Ashraf Sinclair". www.popmagz.com. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
Part memorial, part promo about an episode, nothing SIGCOV about the subject :: 3. ^ Media, Kompas Cyber (February 19, 2020). "Ririn Dwi Ariyanti Unggah Video Terakhir Ashraf Sinclair Usai Syuting". KOMPAS.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved April 4, 2023.
Listed, not SIGCOV :: 4. ^ "Asia Contents Awards Nominations 2020". asiacontentsawards.com. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
Listed, not SIGCOV :: 5. ^ "Reuben Elishama Hadju Masuk Nominasi 2nd Asia Contents Awards Busan International Film Festival". iNews.ID (in Indonesian). October 19, 2020. Retrieved April 4, 2023.
Listed, not SIGCOV :: 6. ^ "Asia Contents Awards Winners 2020". asiacontentsawards.com. Retrieved April 4, 2023.

Nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no sigcov of this tv series. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2023 (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 23:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richa Novisha[edit]

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

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth

Source eval:

"Biodata and Profile", database record :: 1. celebrities.id. "Biodata and Profile of Richa Novisha, Wife of Gary Iskak - Celebrities.Id" . Celebrities.id (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Database record, states "Richa Novisha is a soap opera and feature film acting star, who started her career as a 2002 Cover Girl semifinalist ." :: 2. ^ "KapanLagi.com: Profile of Richa Novisha" . KapanLagi.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Promo "10 Portraits of Ageless Richa Novisha, Already 34 Years Old" :: 3. ^ Times, IDN; Zaakiyah, Raina. "10 Portraits of Ageless Richa Novisha, Already 34 Years Old" . IDN Times (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Promo "Richa Novisha Admits She Has Married Gary Iskak" :: 4. ^ "Richa Novisha Admits She Has Married Gary Iskak" . KapanLagi.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Promo "Richa Novisha is 4 Months Pregnant!" :: 5. ^ Friday, 11 December 2009 11:01 Author: Yunita Rachmawati. "Richa Novisha is 4 Months Pregnant!" . KapanLagi.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Promo "Gary Iskak - Richa Novisha Married" :: 6. ^ Jump up to:a b Wednesday, August 25 2010 11:14 Author: Darmadi Sasongko. "Gary Iskak - Richa Novisha Married". KapanLagi.com(in Indonesian). Retrieved April 4, 2023.
Promo "Richa Novisha is anxiously waiting for the marriage book" :: 7. ^ Sunday, February 28 2010 17:35 Author: Anton. "Richa Novisha is anxiously waiting for the marriage book . " KapanLagi.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Promo "Having 2 Children, This Is How Happy Life Richa Novisha & Gary Iskak" :: 8. ^ "Having 2 Children, This Is How Happy Life Richa Novisha & Gary Iskak" . KapanLagi.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Mention, promo "8 Portraits of Adilla's eldest son" :: 9. ^ "8 Portraits of Adilla's eldest son, Gary Iskak & Richa Novisha, who are now handsome teenagers, the same height as their mother" . KapanLagi.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .
Mention, promo "Full of Warmth and Love, Birthday Celebration of Gary Iskak's Son" :: 10. ^ "Full of Warmth and Love, Birthday Celebration of Gary Iskak's Son" . KapanLagi.com (in Indonesian) . Retrieved April 4, 2023 .

Nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 13:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (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 00:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watchara Buranakruea[edit]

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

Fails GNG, BASIC and NBAD. Only WP:ROUTINE match reports can be found about him (in Thai), so it does not have SIGCOV. Timothytyy (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Florentyna (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find are trivial mentions in Badminton Thai Today and Nation TV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cleary not enough sources nor content to pass GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Purcell (businessman)[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His book seems to be self-published, and the claim that his podcast is "ranked #1 on the Australian charts" isn't supported by the sources. The best reference looks to be this article (paywalled), which based on the title only discusses him to establish some credentials for the magazine-style piece. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article is somewhat better, but it still doesn't make any strong claims of notability. And the coverage seems to be more "him promoting his business" than "about him". Walt Yoder (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hyper-local coverage, interviews, as noted above WP:NAUTHOR hits self published as a barrier. Search complicated by a common name and a lack of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article reads like a resume. ––– GMH Melbourne TALK 11:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Bexaendos (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Initially, I was inclined to vote delete per WP:TNT, but found some good work done by @Hack: ([7]) and it seems like the person barely passes WP:SIGCOV. Newcastle Herald [8] and Australian Broadcasting Corporation [9] are highly reliable sources. 206.83.103.190 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY thanks to IP Editor. I also added a reference from The Adelaide Advertiser. Page still seems pretty skinny to me (multiple references from the one publication (Newcastle Herald) undermines independence of reliable sources). Cabrils (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Cabrils' analysis. Borderline notability; barely crosses it. Meets WP:GNG. 58.169.135.250 (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a no consensus close, can we have a little more analysis, please? Courcelles (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2023 (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 11:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ekezie[edit]

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

Lack of Notability and Insufficient Reliable Sources: Although the article provides some information about Kennedy Chiduziem Ekezie-Joseph's background, accomplishments, and career, it does not demonstrate his notability as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article mainly relies on a limited number of sources, some of which may not be considered reliable or independent. Edit.pdf (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for another "entrepreneur" which means anything and everything these days. CEO of a company that doesn't warrant an article isn't notable. The award seems trivial, but I can't comment how notable it is. I don't find sources beyond puffy things that confirm the person exists. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo BLP, borderline G11, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article is are promo, and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 06:45, 23 April 2023 (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 00:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turner (Pollster)[edit]

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

Insufficient Notability and Reliance on Primary Sources: The article presents information that fails to establish person's notability as required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Edit.pdf (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but he appears neither to be an academic nor to pass our academic notability criteria. In particular, although one of those criteria is about fellows of major societies for which fellowship is a significant honor, neither of the things called "fellow" in the article meet that criterion; one just means he works at a think tank, and the other (Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society) is "open to anyone with an interest in statistics and data science at any stage of their career" rather than reserved as an honor for the society's most distinguished members. So that leaves only WP:GNG-based notability, but we only have passing mentions of him in our sources, rather than the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 18 April 2023 (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 . – Joe (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Guangyang[edit]

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

Single source, without enough information to pass WP:VERIFY. Was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. I asked User:Folly Mox to take a look and see if they could improve the sourcing, and they did work on the article, but as they said on their talk page, the subject is a bit out of their area of expertise. I can't find any in-depth sourcing, so it fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and China. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a quick Google Books search turns up enough to meet GNG: [10][11][12][13] (and many other sources available with a search for "汪廣洋"). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops – I misinterpreted the talk page request to improve the formatting of the citations, not to find additional sources. The article subject has got his own chapter subheading in the Ming Shi. The reason I didn't add any additional citations is because they'd all point to the same spot. I suspect I have access to the same versions of most of the standard histories as our Chinese language editors who cite using search strings instead of page numbers. It's actually quicker to look up that way, especially if the source is not famous enough to earn a modern punctuated edition.
This person's actually notable enough to be covered by modern historians (Mx. Granger's links 2 and 3 above each provide significant coverage), but I claim that the people with biographies in the standard histories are all going to pass GNG. We may only have one surviving source describing their life, but it's been put together from various lost sources by professional historians, who considered them important enough to create space for those people's stories in the execution of their historiography. I have no reason to question their professional opinions, no matter how long they've been dead for. Folly Mox (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep onel5969 what a shit! how dare you. He was the prime minister of Ming dynasty. Clealy passes WP:NPOL, a lot of source in Chinese language found. 49.237.19.178 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The subject is clearly notable. Except in BLP cases, a lack of citations is not a ground for deletion. The article is tagged for needing more citations; and should remain so. It needs improvement not deletion, unless of course it is a HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2023 (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 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malek Mehri[edit]

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

What amounts to a contested draft, since editor simply recreated the same article in mainspace, without any improvements over the draft. Zero in-depth sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lot of what I can find in Arabic just seems to be announcements of whether he is in a squad or not like Nessma and Edawla. I can't find anything that's clear and obvious WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG, BIO. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source in article is a database record. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:30, 21 April 2023 (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 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaith Ouahabi[edit]

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

Contested draft, with zero improvement and zero in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source for article is a database. BEFORE only showed stats, promo mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing teh subject directly and indepth from IS RS. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 04:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:30, 21 April 2023 (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 12:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirDee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some mentions, some unreliable sources (like House of Pop). Can't find any in-depth coverage about them in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Already been deleted twice in the last 3 years through AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There’s is other coverages. The reason it was deleted in past was due to the confusion with “ArrDee” the UK rapper.

This one is AirDee from South Africa. He is one of the legendary producers in Africa and we feel he deserved a spot this time.

However thank you for the review, this page was moved from draft to article because we were hoping to get it revised by some of the best on here.

Thank you PenJuluka (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT this time as well. Contrary to what the person above said, all three nominations are for the same person, the South African producer/singer AirDee, as can be seen via mentions of his work with Locnville. This guy's articles have already been deleted twice because as a producer, he only ever appeared in the credit lists of other people's works, which is a curse that producers face. This time, his status as a behind-the-scenes and non-notable producer has not changed. He has since moved into creating his own music, but his one solo song so far has not attracted significant notice and has only been hyped at unreliable sites that reprint his management's promo announcements. This should also be salted to prevent yet another unneeded recreation of the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article is are promo, and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 06:53, 23 April 2023 (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 . 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Udinese Calcio season[edit]

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

Another contested draft returned to mainspace without improvement. Zero in-depth sources from independent reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serie A season, reached semis of Coppa Italia, played in UEFA Cup, definitely has sources, (such as [14]). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Disclosure: I'm the one who started the article. I think being one of the top 20 football teams in one of the top 3 football leagues on the planet makes the article practically inherently notable. Yes, I will improve it with sources and more information, but the crazy urgency shown by Onel (it's NOT an old article) would've been warranted if the subject was more obscure. This nomination feels almost comically out of place at this point in time. At least Onel did the right thing by taking it to AfD instead of draftifying again. Oh, and draftifying is among the most arrogant thing a Wikipedia editor can do. OscarL 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is sourced only to databases. Fails GNG. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject - the season - directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. The above mentioned source is not about the subject of the article [15]. // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're acquainted with football, but season by season articles for each major team (among the biggest in the world) is the standard. The fact that sourcing could improve does not detract from the fact that the Udinese season, just like all the other ones in existence, is notable by virtue of its subject. See here: "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements." It's not a case of "Other stuff exist" either, I am actually basing it on Wikipedia guidelines. Please, give me time to improve refs, I did not expect such a rushed action for something that is basically a staple in top level football club articles. OscarL 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Honestly, this one shouldn't even be a discussion. A top-flight Italian team which competed in a European competition easily garners SIGCOV to more than meet GNG. Online sources are available, including a number listed on the Italian Wiki. The article needs improving not deleting. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. Another nomination where no knowledge of the subject has been shown and no research/BEFORE has been undertaken. Giant Snowman 11:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify as per above this is a top Italian team and one of the top European and world at the time so clearly warrants a season article. This article is clearly in need of improving, not deleting. However, as this is almost 20 years after the season, I don't understand the pushback by OscarLake to draftifying the article and improving it in draft space. Currently the article is a short lede, an inclusion of the ladder, and the squad. --SuperJew (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with draftifying an article that is (or should be) assumed to be notable enough is that it reduces the amount of editors who can help out with improvement. No one beyond the article creator is going to know about the draft's existence really. Also, I don't take kindly to one single editor undemocratically taking it off mainspace with no consensus-seeking discusisons beforehand. The nominator in question has gotten criticism for this. If you are draftifying at the speed and volume that the nominator is, then there will be a pushback from some editors. Communication and collaboration are important for the Wikipedia project, neither of which happened in this case. OscarL 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and I would support having the article in the mainspace if it was a recent season, but as it's over 20 years ago, I don't think having it in mainspace encourages too many editors to work on it. Regardless I am against deleting it. Regarding the nominator, I'm not such a big frequenter of AfD, but after this, just today I came across a bunch of bad nominations by them, so I can understand. --SuperJew (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stevie’s argument above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes article has issues and needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. Bad nomination. Govvy (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2023 (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 12:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger versus lion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tiger vs lion

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

Historically this has been the worst article on the English Wikipedia. It's been cleaned up quite a lot since it was last at AfD, but the clean-up only serves to point out that the subject and article is a WP:NOT violation, in this case original thought and indiscriminate collection of information. The article as a whole is largely WP:SYNTH, which falls under our understanding of original research. It take conclusions drawn from a variety of sources and tries to synthesize it into a consistent argument, while also discussing which side is favored. On the indiscriminate part: the history of observed fights and galleries are not organized in any coherent way, and there is no distinguishing criteria for what should be included.

Even if this meets GNG (which is debatable) the cleaned up article is still a massive WP:NOT violation, which based on the deletion policy is ground for removal from Wikipedia via deletion on its own (WP:DEL14 and WP:DEL6.) I submit to the community that this is the best the article is ever going to look, and even in this state, it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and is outside of scope, making deletion the only valid way to fix the problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As indicated by Tony, this page is miles better than it was at the time of the last AFD in 2019. That does not mean it is a suitable article, though. The article contains (in order) a set of opinions from biologists and animal trainers, a section simply indicating the two have/will/might live in the same area and thus might fight each other, and a section listing the historical interactions of the animals in captivity. Oh, and there's some pretty artwork at the end. There are no recorded instances of lions and tigers even interacting, let alone fighting, in the wild, and everything is either opinion or conjecture. In writing this I have briefly considered putting forward the idea of trimming it further and making it "a history of interactions between captive lions and tigers" but that would fail WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, we have an article that basically asks "lions and tigers are cool, who would win?" and then gives a few opinions and conjecture with no real substance. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are most certainly parts of the article that should be cut or improved, the topic itself passes WP:GNG and WP:NOT. WP:OR / WP:SYNTH should indeed be removed, but the article is largely sourced from other parties, frequently as secondary sources, discussing the very topic throughout history, often with regard to the topics' history, which is precisely what this article covers. In direct response to the nomination statement, I submit that it's not yet in the best state it could be, as indeed not only can some of the criticisms be cleaned up at this point, but there are likely still further sources to compile here. A quick search, for example, reveals the Lion vs. Tiger entry in the popular children's series Who Would Win?. —siro χ o 08:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a joke page, and has no place in mainspace. If a user wants to put this on their talk page, or in the humorous content section then go ahead. Else, remove. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I watch this article, I've helped clean up this article, I've argued about this before. "Who would win, animal 1 or animal 2" is a common topic and tiger-or-lion is just one of many permutations. The amount of times it has been brought up does not make it suitable for an encyclopedia article. The amount of SYNTH, conjecture, OR, and other problems this article is made of and attracts is laughable and frustrating. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of this topic has not changed since it survived the previous AfD nominations, in which the existence of multiple reliable sources was demonstrated. WP:GNG is passed. Having a ~~third~~fourth crack at deletion is starting to feel disruptive. The content (and perhaps the title) could be improved, but AfD is not cleanup. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how contentious the last two AfDs were, and the fact that most of the commentators in both were people who had nothing to do with the article (and that the second AfD was hit by the rather infamous Article Rescue Squadron), a third nomination, years after the last and with the article still showing the same issues of SYNTH/OR/etc, is not disruptive. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to expand on my reference to the previous AfD nominations, I'd like to point people to the subthread between Levivich and EEng in the "2nd nomination" discussion, where Levivich details many sources that directly cover the comparison of tigers and lions. Unlike the wall of text citations provided elsewhere, these are not articles which talk only about tigers, or only about lions. They are not only about hypothetical fights. Case in point is this comparison of genetics. Now, I'm fully on board with the complaint that the article is currently in a poor condition, but I absolutely see the WP:POTENTIAL in moving it to Comparison of lions and tigers and basing it on these sources. The fighting angle could be condensed to a single section, expanding with additional sections covering biological/genetic comparisons, political metaphor, representations in art, and so on. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No! No! No! It was already decided that "Comparisons of lion and tigers" is unencyclopedic. We are not resurrecting that. LittleJerry (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT violation. There is no way to reasonably construct an encylopedic article about this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article has issues, I don't believe there is anything here that is not ultimately fixable. I don't see any significant change in circumstances since the previous AfD (except, as the nom acknowledges, some of the issues have started to be addressed). In the absence of any significant developments I'm inclined to respect the outcome of the previous AfD and retain the article 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:803F:4CC0:FA53:2D78 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siroχo, Barnards.tar.gz and 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:803F:4CC0:FA53:2D78. This article has been a part of English Wikipedia since October 2010 and has interwiki links to analogous entries in Arabic Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, Albanian Wikipedia, Turkish Wikipedia, and Vietnamese Wikipedia. It is illustrated with 14 well-chosen entries from Commons and contains 57 extremely detailed inline cites, thus obviating complaints regarding insufficient sourcing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And the most recent sister project to consider it for deletion, es.wiki, deleted it on the same grounds proposed here see es.wiki AfD. Just because other projects haven't cleaned it up yet is not grounds to keep it on en.wiki. The sourcing concerns are not given as rationale for deletion, nor is notability (though I do not think it is notable.)
  The concern given is that it is a WP:NOT violation that cannot be remediated and has not been remediated after 13 years and two different AfDs. This is the best the article has every looked, and it still falls outside of our scope and is unlikely to ever be improved to the point of not failing NOT. There are 14 reasons for deletion under WP:DELPOL, and this article satisfies at least two of them (DEL6 and DEL14.) So far, no one supporting inclusion has rebutted the arguments in favour of deletion on a policy basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  DEL6 is “Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources”. But the existence of reliable sources has been demonstrated. It’s a cleanup task to remove any unattributed or SYNTH material, not a deletion task. By all means apply TNT if necessary.
  
  DEL14 is “Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia”, but it’s not clear to me why this topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It’s a notable topic for which multiple reliable sources exist.
  
  By the way, I note there was an RfC which didn’t reach consensus to rename the article “Comparison of lions and tigers”, which is unfortunate because that would be a much better solution - this article shouldn’t be just about hypothetical fight situations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having articles on other language wikis does not in any way demonstrate notability, nor does having been an article for a long time either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I went through a checked, and the SYNTH/OR is worse than I thought- only a fraction of the sources directly deal with lions & tigers coexisting and/or fighting in any meaningful manner, and the majority of those are rather sensationalist newspaper articles. Even if this article is somehow kept, I will likely gut it to remove the issue. Secondarily, I have doubts about the reliability of the majority of the sources (though I haven't checked them all yet). Thirdly, for everyone who argues that just because tiger vs lion has been mentioned many times: so has many other x vs y, who would win in a fight, where x and y are large animals. That doesn't provide GNG or encyclopedic content on any of side x vs y topics, and it doesn't here either. Good day. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the gorilla v. grizzly debate. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reverted the retargeting of a bunch of redirects to this article by Leo1pard as premature. That may be suitable if a decision to delete is reached, but not before. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree again to delete for same reasons as explained and argued ↑↑. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suggest to also delete the 17 redirects to various sections of this page rather than redirecting those to the pages on either lion or tiger. See list of redirects at Special:WhatLinksHere/Tiger_versus_lion. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree with also deleting those redirects. I just removed the bogus category they were all recently added to, which emptied that category, and deleted the category. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A ridiculous waste of time that doesn't belong in any reference work. A vacuous forum argument about nothing of consequence, maintained by a few obsessives, disguised as an 'article'. To describe it as 'synthesis' gives it more credit for coherent structure than it actually has. Cherry-picked nothingness. If people really want to engage in such pointless argumentation, I suggest they go create a specialised ThisVsThatOpedia, where they can argue over the relative combat skills of typewriters versus pop-up toasters if they like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might need some improvement. A similar article was deleted, Jaguar vs leopard, but we can all agree, that this is surely a topic highly regarded in zoology and literature, among the earliest known generations, until nowadays. Punetor i Rregullt5 ^{talk} 10:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highly regarded in Zoology and literature? Do you have anything to substantiate that? I highly doubt Zoologists spend their time pondering if X animal could beat up Y. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the books you asked sir, and many more; 1 2 3 4 Some1 ^{talk} 11:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comment at the bottom. Leo1pard (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Until nowadays" doesn't add anything. Are there any concrete facts to signify that this is or was at any point in history a talking point among scientists and writers. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. Also, WP:SALT is due. UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not OR, and is adeqautely referenced, take the initial sentence for instance, which is detailed to the extent that I would trim it down for this discussion, especially as it has no less than a dozen references which actually are related to the topic of the lion versus the tiger, and therefore renders the argument of those who say that this is a synthesis as invalid:

"Historically, the comparative merits of the tiger (Panthera tigris) versus the lion (Panthera leo) ... have been a popular topic of discussion by hunters,^[1]^[2] naturalists,^[3] artists and poets, and continue to inspire the popular imagination in the present day.^[4] ... ^[5]" Leo1pard (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 11:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise anyone who might take the above claim seriously to take a look at the sources cited: the first, for instance, is nothing more than a comment made in passing, which does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump There's far more to WP:Notability than what you see here. This is just an excerpt! I wouldn't put the whole thing here! Leo1pard (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure people are capable of looking at the sources and deciding for themselves whether they constitute the sort of in-depth coverage required. Which is why I recommended they do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 53 sources still here. Earlier, there were no less than 145! This is one of the scientific sources which got removed from the article. Leo1pard (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 13:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an article about the scientific report. It isn't a scientific source in and of itself. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's 53 sensational newspaper articles and pasted-together scientific papers- the former of which are hardly reliable, and the latter of which don't deal with the topic directly but are being used to synthesize a statement comparing/contrasting the two. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, the article did have more sources (scientific or otherwise) which dealt directly with the topic, but many of these have since been removed: ... Leo1pard (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I picked one at random. [16] It says absolutely nothing about the topic of this article. Off-topic sources prove nothing beyond demonstrating that the 'article' is being dominated by people who either don't understand Wikipedia policy, or do understand it, but refuse to let it get in the way of their silly argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer, this huge list of material that supposedly "dealt directly with the topic" is utter garbage. What the flying fuck is an article on 'Kyivan Rus' from the 'Internet Encyclopaedia of Ukraine' doing on it? No mention of lions. No mention of tigers. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Leo1pard I suggest you redact that list, and apologise, before I raise the matter at ANI. Misrepresenting sources in this manner is grossly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump You didn't look closely enough! The beast which Vladimir II Monomakh was said to be either a lion or tiger! What else should I show you, before making a statement which shows that you simply haven't read enough? Leo1pard (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you drunk or something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks! Leo1pard (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the Kyivan Rus article about a lion, a tiger, or Monomakh killing a beast in general. Perhaps that's in another article on that site, but not the article you supplied. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about lion vs tiger fights in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Balkans, either. [17] Or in the Encyclopaedia Iranica article on Flags of Persia. [18] The supposed list of sources is outright fraudulent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behold the persistent problem with the article: sources being masqueraded as relevant when, in fact, they say exactly nothing dealing with lions fighting, coexisting, or being compared with tigers. If I went ahead and removed the rampant SYNTH present (an act which would make the keep!voters scream in outrage), the article would be a mere fraction of its present size, and almost entirely lacking in good, reliable sources. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above reference list is a WP:WALLOFTEXT. I also checked some titles in this list, but many either date to old 19th or early 20th century anecdotes in newspapers, or are about either Tiger OR Lion, but NOT about Tiger versus Lion. But I suppose this list was anyway not meant to be an argument for keeping the page? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that one more time I will block you for being disruptive. Saying the same thing six times, when you can just link to Special:Permalink/925678787 (which I did in my first edit here) and gives the old page in 2019, is pointless and a waste of everyone's time. Please save yourself some effort and stop saying the same thing over and over. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not a topic worthy of a Wikipedia discussion. Wikipedia is not a tier list of animals or meant to theorize hypothetical matchups between animals. The article's discussion of "historical" conflict between the two species is better discussed within specific pages. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Sorry for the repetitions. Because the whole thing is cumbersome, let me try to simplify what was in this article:

Historically, the comparative merits of the tiger versus the lion was a popular topic of discussion by hunters, naturalists, artists, and poets, and it continues to inspire the popular imagination in the present day. Lions and tigers have competed in the wild where their ranges have overlapped. They have also been pitted against each other in captivity, either as deliberate contests or as a result of accidental encounters.

...

Leo1pard (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a simplification, that's another WP:WALLOFTEXT. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG OK, but there was more relevant information, backed by sources before. Leo1pard (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, exactly? TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a crap-ton of SYNTH cite-bombed to look good. There's a reason it was pruned considerably, and you arguing to restore it is just infuriating. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to restore the whole thing. Never mind. Leo1pard (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard to believe this insipid concept for an article exists, much less survived previous discussions. this is like an animal version of "batman can beat up Superman!", WP:SYNTH to its core. ValarianB (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ José Ortega y Gasset (2007). Meditations on Hunting. ISBN 978-1-932098-53-2.
^ John Hampden Porter (1894). Wild beasts; a study of the characters and habits of the elephant, lion, leopard, panther, jaguar, tiger, puma, wolf, and grizzly bear. pp. 76–256. Retrieved 2014-01-19.
^ Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 9780815515708
^ William Bridges (22 August 1959). Lion vs. tiger: who'd win?. Retrieved 2016-02-28. ((cite book)): |journal= ignored (help)
^ Thomas, Isabel (2006). Lion vs. Tiger. Raintree. ISBN 978-1-4109-2398-1.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've never understood what this forum chat page is doing masquerading as an article in a supposed reference work. Per TonyBallioni. Bishonen | bishzilla versus Tokyo 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a perfect example of WP:SYNTH; the existence of sources doesn't mean it's a notable topic. Yes, tigers and lions are sometimes compared. It doesn't mean we have something to hang an article on. I too am surprised this survived as long as it did. In the early years of Wikipedia, this kind of stuff would fly. We no longer live in that world, and it's about time for this to go. --Jayron 32 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:5P1, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. This is not an academic, encyclopaedic article, this is childish silliness. The article does not present a coherent topic - it takes a bunch of barely related sources and tries to combine them together to form a topic. Per WP:NOPAGE everything in here would be better presented elsewhere, where it can be put in proper context, the information on distributions of the species belongs in the articles on the species, the information on depictions of lions in art belongs in Cultural depictions of lions, The information on ancient roman arena fights belongs in articles on ancient roman arena fights, the opinions of random people on who would win in a fight between a lion and a tiger belongs in the bin. This genuinely is one of the worst articles I've ever read. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find Levivich and EEng's discussion at the last AfD enlightening on what sort of article could be made on this topic, but I don't see anything here worth saving, especially not at this title. casualdejekyll 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just too much WP:SYNTH/WP:INDISCRIMINATE that muddies the water on the article and past attempts to assess notability due to fluff and WP:COATRACK (and often resulted in drive-by keep !votes). In the last AfD I was looking more at possible merges/redirects, and none exist. The content just isn't encyclopedic. The closest one could get is maybe and article on lion and tiger interactions, but that would best by assessed for notability and done by scratch rather than using any of the history here. Even then, I'm not sure such an article would really be notable either though, but it sure would be more encyclopedic than this POV title and cobbled together content. KoA (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to mostly be original synthesis and bringing together disparate topics to form an article that isn't a topic based in reliable sources. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last time this came up I was at best unenthiusiastic. Four years later I think this is a perennial destination for synthesis and loosely-connected anecdote that is best consigned to some sort of X vs Y Fandom. It has become a sort of memorial to the sort of things we used to put up with, and has no place in a serious reference work. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been an awful timesink of disruption and cluelessness forever. Any actual reliably sourced encyclopedically relevant facts about tigers or lions should go in their respective articles, rather than in this embarrassment of OR, SYNTH, and POV. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete. the people above have already said it best. lettherebedarklight 晚安 05:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking for an exotic pet, stumbled upon many wolf vs hyena, bear vs bull etc. but a classical tiger vs lion will always be a notable topic among people, of any age, who is the real king of the jungle? sure its editors have biases, but in contrast to a wolf vs hyena, or any other batman vs spiderman fiction; animal enthusiasts, kids, adults, poets, literature authors, zoologicts, have always regarded this topic. Punetor i Rregullt5 ^{talk} 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add in some more references, that makes it encyclopedic enough?? (we already have the references, no doubt it passes WP:GNG -- Punetor i Rregullt5 ^{talk} 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable books covering the topic 1 2 3 4 -- Punetor i Rregullt5 ^{talk} 11:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:RS? Or WP:N? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you linked to 4 random non-notable books. the last two look like those big, glossy-page ones that you would expect to find in an elementary school library. none of these establishes notability, these are fluff. ValarianB (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punetor i Rregullt5, this chain of comments really does display a staggering lack of clue. First of all, do you actually know what this site is? You should really read WP:5 pillars, especially the first point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an exotic pet comparison guide or a fantasy fight compendium.

Why on earth are you referencing notability when talking about those sources? The notability of the source is irrelevant, what matters is if the source is reliable. Three of those books are literally elementary schooler level texts for children learning to read, how on earth are they suitable sources for an academic encyclopaedia article? 192.76.8.81 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point brother, I couldn't care less if the article is deleted. Excuse my expression, but I can see why our generation is certainly failing; after all, what good does it bring to debate whether a tiger beats a lion, while you have a life to live and succeed? What started as an 8th grade hobby (editing), apparently grew to caring about lions and tigers online! -- Some1 ^{talk} 17:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT as explained above. // Timothy :: talk 08:15, 23 April 2023 (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 03:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albino Squirrel Preservation Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated this for deletion via PROD, but apparently it had already been AfD'd in 2005 and deleted. Think thats too long ago to G4. Sending to AfD instead. My rationale for the PROD, and now this AfD is: "Non-notable university club. Coverage is predominately local press and a novelty. Does not meet our standards for inclusion." TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Coverage is very local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just one of many university clubs. Not notable and of no real significance. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2023 (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 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Massaro[edit]

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

Reliable secondary sources to not exist on the subject of this article. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only secondary sources that discuss Massaro are from the deprecated sources list. See WP:DEPSOURCES. The deprecated sources are attack articles against Massaro from Russia Today, Sputnik, and Belarusian state media. If they are allowed, the page then appears to be an attack article. See WP:ATTACK If only primary sources from Massaro's affiliations are used, then the page appears to be a self-promotion page, and primary sources do not establish notability. The article should be deleted because reliable secondary sources do not exist to establish notability, and biographies of living people require extra care. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this is basically an attack-page. No SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, interviews are not independent of the subject. WP:BASIC fail. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A combination of an attack page and a WP:NOTNEWS case. No indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable sources. NM 01:16, 19 April 2023 (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 03:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prepaid Payment Instruments in India[edit]

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

A series of dictionary definitions with an honest-to-goodness directory list. I don't even know where to start or why this page exists or if this is a notable concept or a neologism (it may not be if it is in Indian law). I would want to see SIGCOV of the concept as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and India. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing used, this could all be made up as far as we know. I'm not searching for sources for every item listed in the chart. If you can't source your list, we can't keep it here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Orientls (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2023 (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. Sourcing is insufficient. Sole input/edits has suspicious overlap with now blocked creator. Star Mississippi 12:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Prime Show with Aiman[edit]

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

Fails notability. None of the references in the article address the subject, or are promotional material, so there is no SIGCOV. References themselves are not IS RS for notability. BEFORE showed promotional material, database listings. // Timothy :: talk 04:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i revised the articles & prevent treat speedy deletion article

103.119.62.56 (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this article, I feel very sad for the another person created this article from the threat of quick deletion.

103.119.62.56 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:36, 18 April 2023 (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!} 03:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbla[edit]

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

Film is unsourced since 11years. NP83 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Algeria, and France. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of a number of articles about films selected for the Festival of African Cinema whose information was captured in WP via CC BY-SA under a Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge initiative, but where the original online resources no longer exist. For such initiatives, perhaps clearer source preservation is needed from outset? AllyD (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a couple of references showing critical reception of this film. As well as these, the intro to a 2009 festival showing said that "With his second feature (...) Tariq Teguia proves himself to be the most important new director in Algeria" [19]. More recently, the synopsis of a paywalled Journal of African Cinemas article (2016) claims "that Tariq Teguia's 2008 film "Inland" establishes a new frontier for North African cinema with the creation of a unique visual style that moves away from the thematic considerations of national cinema." [20]. Overall, I think there is enough independent coverage for WP:NFILM. AllyD (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as two reliable sources reviews have been added to the article and together with the coverage mentioned above WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . TonyBallioni (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tahchee, Arizona[edit]

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

No evidence of a notable populated place here; the best source I could find was this which mentions a sheep camp at the base of a hill called Tah-chee. Satellite views show what appears to be a cluster of ranching-type buildings, and topos do not show the name prior to 2011. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be part of the community of Blue Gap/Tachee, one of the 110 chapters of the Navajo Nation [21]. See also this Navajo Times article.[22] It's not the same exact community as Blue Gap, because in 1954, there was a school established at Tah Chee *and* a school at Blue Gap, that apparently later merged[23]. There are some historical notes about Tah Chee in A Diné History of Navajoland [24]. It's cited as a mission station (again separately from Blue Gap) of the Annunciation Indian Mission in the 1958 official Catholic directory. [25] And a 1985 article in Ethnic Forum notes that "Tah Chee" and "Tahchee" are variant spellings of the same name.--Jahaza (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 1961 Navajo Yearbook the school at Tahchee had 25 students.[26] Robert Franklin Leslie visits circa 1967 and the "ancient" settlement has been abandoned by still nomadic Navajo herders. More discussion of Tah-chee in this book[27], where circa the early 21st century it's being used as a summer settlement camp.[28] Jahaza (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete We really need a better way of handling the Navajo chapters than co-opting towns for them, because that's not what they are; they're more on the county level of governmental organization. As far as this specific spot is concerned, first, state road maps are a terrible source for GNIS. Looking through the aerials and topos, yes, there are buildings here, but they don't obviously interpret as something more than a ranch. Which takes me to the textual sources, where first of all we have the issue of disentangling the chapter from the possible settlement. And conversely, picking this point out as the central point of the chapter is not clear either, not when we are looking at potentially tens of thousands of acres. If we had something that strongly tied this point to the chapter facilities, I'd be likely to go for a "keep" result, but as it is I'm having trouble tying it all together. Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment appears to be one of the communities affected by the uranium mine: [29] Elinruby (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 18 April 2023 (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!} 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton, Ontario, tornado of 2005[edit]

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

This tornado lacks notability; it does not even need a section in the main tornado article page. ChessEric 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And remove unsourced section too. 98.116.131.119 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. Fails GNG and EVENT, ROUTINE coverage, no WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE. // Timothy :: talk 09:43, 23 April 2023 (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 11:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Steel (actress)[edit]

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

I first saw this article when I was surfing the article about the film, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever only to find the short description and the filmography about the actress. I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article's stubbiness is not a valid reason to delete it, and the subject passes the GNG. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist: AfD discussion was never transcluded to the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Subject passes GNG. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress in major film franchise with multiple instances of whole-article coverage from major media outlets. Easily meets WP:GNG. Oblivy (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While most coverage arose from her death, not all of it did, and therefore she at least meets WP:BASIC and probably meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Analysis based on existing sources in the article. CT55555(talk) 14:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the criteria of WP:GNG. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionably meets the criteria. No good reasons to delete. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I 100% see how this was a borderline case and even I had to go deep into Google to find them. But this annoyingly counts "technically". Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profile in The New York Times[30]. Notable. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Borderline case but well-sourced. She has acted in some of the most recognisable films and has minimum coverage to pass WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2023 (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.