Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

3 June 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< June 02 June 04 >

Purge server cache

One Night in Yoshiwara[edit]

One Night in Yoshiwara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is one source given, but amount of detail given could define the term "passing mention". I searched for some more sources and found several more passing mentions (e.g. "Barbara Dju is possibly best known for her role in Eine Nacht in Yoshiwara"). XabqEfdg (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kion de Mexico[edit]

Kion de Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The seventeen years that the article on this company has existed as an unsourced stub exceeds the fifteen years for which the company itself actually existed. I would suggest merging somewhere, but only if sources could be found to support content to be merged. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory google + google books search gives nothing for "Kion de Mexico." If any sources can be found it's probably sufficient to put under United Airlines. If someone writes a huge piece on it it can always be re-split again. I'll vote Merge and Redirect. Hopefully someone finds a source for it eventually? Mrfoogles (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
honestly speedy delete. wp:promodelete could have worked as well User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Menzies Aviation as per ADT as the new owners. HighKing++ 20:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HighKing: I don't know that we have a third-party source for that. We do have the John Menzies plc, Annual Report 2010, stating at page 99: "In 2009 Menzies Aviation acquired the trade and fixed assets of Kion, a ramp services business based at Mexico City Airport, for a consideration of £0.5m, including costs of £0.1m". BD2412 T 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 I think that source should be OK - but if not, happy to go along with the suggestion to merge with United Airlines. HighKing++ 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect.
User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to settle on a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malaal-e-Yaar[edit]

Malaal-e-Yaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's fairly easy to establish that this was a notable, high-profile production. There might not be any PhD thesis written about its impact on Pakistani literature in the long term, but that would be a bar to high. Most google hits are episodes or link to episodes, but see for example coverage such as [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most, if not all, are unreliable sources and therefore not enough to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how notability works. It is different to judge potential sources for substantiating claims in the article mainspace, where unreliable sources may be called into question, as opposed to show media coverage to establish notability. Coverage in tabloids or low-quality sources can very well be used to imply notability. I'd counter-ask, what process of WP:BEFORE did you do perform before nomination for deletion? This was nominated, with a nearly copy-paste deletion rationale from a lot of Pakistan-related AfDs in the past days, within 5 minutes from another AfD. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage on google. Significant coverage on google news about "Malaal-e-Yaar" & "Malaal e Yaar". Libraa2019 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: I wouldn't be fiercely opposed to Keep, because there is some coverage (like this https://www.masala.com/tv-reviews/malaal-e-yaar-a-summary-of-the-show-to-date-292294, bylined review) but if all in all it seems insufficient, redirecting it seems a reasonable ATD. A line can be added in the target article. Or more. (It may go without saying but I am opposed to deletion of this) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford[edit]

Simon Hansford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua[edit]

Sione Fonua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (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) 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture[edit]

Microlecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

Literature of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
    • English literature refers to literature in the English language
    • Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
    I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.
Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?
Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...
You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.
The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Raper[edit]

Catherine Raper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 3 of the 4 sources are primary from her employer. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walton School of Auctioneering[edit]

Walton School of Auctioneering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a bare ad for a non-notable school listing its curriculum that's been inserted into Auction school as a form of advertising. lizthegrey (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Giganto[edit]

Eric Giganto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this short piece. JTtheOG (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School[edit]

Westview Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows[edit]

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is nominated for deletion as it doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N and not WP:S talk more of WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible[edit]

Shaadi Impossible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Plenty of good refs which indicates notability [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, But there's no mention whatsoever of the subject in sources # 1, 2 and 4, Source # 3, though OK for WP:V, but insufficient for GNG because its WP:ROTM coverage. As for source # 5, SomethingHaute is a WordPress blog per this, which isn't deemed a RS. Source # 6 is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS[edit]

LogFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:
Honorable mentions:
Dishonorable mentions:
jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–Montenegro relations[edit]

Italy–Montenegro relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing here that cannot be covered under Foreign relations of Italy or Foreign relations of Montenegro. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Montenegro. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article contains 2 primary sources. Lacking third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no criteria that articles (apart from BLPs) have to have third party sources to meet GNG. The notability is not to be judged by the sources in the article at present, but the potential available scope of sources. It's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article on the relations between these 2 neigbouring countries. --Soman (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, please read WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject". It is a basic requirement of GNG to provide third party sources. For an editor who has edited since 2004 you should know this. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and they're not really neighbouring, yes across the sea but no land border. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article " Please list these or it's WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd counter-question is any WP:BEFORE was performed here? In this case it's pretty easy to assume that sources would be available. How about [17], [18], [19], "Italia e il Montenegro , firmato a Cettigne il 28 marzo 1883. È desso il primo accordo che l'Italia stipula con quel principato , ed è il secondo che il Montenegro conchiude con nazioni estere , il primo essendo stato concluso colla ." ([20]), "Nel novembre 1879 , Giuseppe Ottolenghi , delegato italiano nella commissione per la delimitazione nel Montenegro , nella sua relazione al capo dello Stato Maggiore riassume ." ([21]), "[Albania]... Italy, Montenegro and, traditionally, those of Austria, was not a minor problem. This issue, therefore, was destined to alter the relations between Montenegro and Italy, and between Italy and Serbia. Projects of Italian occupation..." ([22]), etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding third party sources which is a requirement of GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar @Soman With the exception of link 1 above (and link 2, which is a dead link), the sources provided refer to historical episodes already covered in detail in other articles. See Italian governorate of Montenegro, Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Again, with the exception of link 1, the sources are not about the relationship between Italy and the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. My BEFORE search did not turn up enough significant coverage of post-2006 relations, which means that WP:NOPAGE should apply to avoid creating a content fork with Italian governorate of Montenegro or Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dclemens, from your analysis of sources, I stand by my delete !vote. I agree that coverage should be about the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an approach consistent with how other bilateral relations articles are delimited. Look at Russia–United Kingdom relations, China–India relations, Germany–Italy relations, and so forth. At no point does this article have to relate to post 2006 material only. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Germany/Italy article starts only with the establishment of modern unified Italy. It's not a history of how Prussia interacted with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Likewise, the Italy/Montenegro article starts with the first establishment of a sovereign Montenegrin state that can engage in foreign relations... in 2006. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, let's not limit AfD discussions to the current contents of an article. The discussion should relate to the potential scope of how an article can evolve. There are difficult cases and grey areas, but taking the timeline back to 1800s (unification of Italy and Prinicipality/Kingdom of Montenegro) makes perfect sense to start in this case. It is in line with how articles on Russian bilateral relations link back to more or less same period. --Soman (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Otherwise liable to be closed "no consensus."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

One Spoon of Chocolate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.
The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :
  1. https://blavity.com/rza-contemplating-one-spoon-of-chocolate-period-piece-spanning-1960s-through-1970s
  2. https://deadline.com/2024/05/jason-isbell-boards-rza-film-one-spoon-of-chocolate-1235916186/
  3. https://www.hot97.com/news/rza-set-to-direct-one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  4. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/paris-jackson-shameik-moore-to-lead-one-spoon-of-chocolate-drama/article68101471.ece
  5. https://www.hola.com/us/entertainment/20240425359223/paris-jackson-one-spoon-of-chocolate-movie/
  6. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/rza-on-his-new-movies-and-recording-with-paul-banks-101527/
  7. https://blexmedia.com/one-spoon-of-chocolate/
  8. https://www.blackfilmandtv.com/news/rza-to-direct-produce-one-spoon-of-chocolate-shameik-moore-and-paris-jackson
  9. https://ew.com/article/2012/10/29/rza-man-with-the-iron-fists/
  10. https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/jason-isbell-boards-rza-action-201425470.html
etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.
A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.
So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.
So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Taiko[edit]

San Jose Taiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While previously deleted for G11, this time the page has been written in a more encyclopedic tone. Unfortunately, there is just not any coverage that I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References to published academic work demonstrating the significance of this organization to the art of taiko in North America have been added, as well as national recognition from the NEA for the original managing director and artistic director of the organization. 31N2024 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added as well as User:Atlantic306's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecko Miles[edit]

Ecko Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see enough evidence to establish WP:NMUSICIAN. Some sources are unreliably having a close connection to the subject, some are WP:ROUTINE coverages announcing founding of Daed Empire, most are PRs, announcing collabo or music release, etc. Fails WP:GNG in a nutshell. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the subject meets some of the criterias of WP:NMUSICIAN for example the song he had with popular Nigerian rapper and musician charted major charts in the country as was cited in the article , also I would say it meets WP:GNG the sources used in the subject article are in line with WP:NGRS too, after thorough investigations I will say this the subject was not as notable as he was before the collaboration he had with Zlatan and odumodu blvck but that collaboration was what increased his notability and brought him further into the limelight.ProWikignome (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO due to chart position of his song. Hkkingg (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli[edit]

Michel Pontremoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Monastyryshche[edit]

Battle of Monastyryshche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a Stub - these are actual events so what is the point of deleting it? If someone has reliable information to the battle then they can expand it at any time.Olek Novy (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. References are very poor and I am having trouble finding RS on this, there are some snippet mentions in few academic sources but nothing substantial (well, I am also doing a quick search too, no time for in-depth one - but nom should do it - I see little evidence of WP:BEFORE here). The nom also writes thatthe article is "devoid of reliable sources", but one ref is "Wielcy hetmani Rzeczypospolitej" from 1983 by Jerzy Besala - why is it unreliable? Now, given the crappy writing found in the article, I would not be surprised if that source does not mention this battle - but this needs to be verified first. There are also more reliable positions in bibliography that should be checked. Lastly, why did the nom not nominate this for deletion at pl wiki (where I see a page range is given for Besala, making it more likely this event is mentioned there, and another RS, Leszek Podhorodecki, is cited)? Sorry, Marcelus, but I think you need a WP:TROUT here. Such messes should be tagged and improved, but not deleted. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article is going to stay, basically 90% of it needs to be removed as unsourced OR. Marcelus (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the amount of available reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLHU-CD[edit]

KLHU-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why articles are deleted, but I found this article in “Edge” search and it provided the information I was looking for. If it had been deleted I would still be looking! The reason I use “Wikipedia” is I almost always find something about what I’m searching for and why I on an annual basis contribute to its support, Thank DWE! 172.56.84.213 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Leon McClanahan[edit]

Darrell Leon McClanahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly every single source cited on this page is about the Missouri GOP's effort to disqualify his 2024 gubernatorial campaign. Per WP:1E, this doesn't make McClanahan notable, and this information could simply be transferred to the 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election page, with McClanahan's page being made into a redirect. I don't see the argument for McClanahan being notable on his own. The only two sources not about the disqualification controversy are WP:ROTM coverage of his 2022 Senate campaign. The ADL lawsuit is somewhat interesting, but given that it didn't seem to receive news coverage, that doesn't seem notable either (and the paragraph about the lawsuit on this page could easily be transferred to the ADL's page). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and blatant BLP violations. Non notable politician, who failed in his 2022 election attempts. The rest of this is speculation of a future run, and criticism of his personal life, and his alleged associations with the Ku Klux Klan. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Buffington[edit]

Phillip Buffington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played one season in the American third division and otherwise played in amateur leagues. Now coaches at a private high school in Jackson, Mississippi. Several searches brought up a single local mention for the amateur Mississippi Brilla and several local pieces on the success of the team he coaches. He exists and is clearly a decent coach of high schoolers, but this falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1162720113"