Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:02, 1 May 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 30	May 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raunaq Ahuja

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

Non notable actor. Doesn’t have reliable news coverage even not a single source. Fails WP:NACTOR. IndaneLove (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and India. IndaneLove (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He does seem to have acted in some films here -[1], I think it is him. RS6784 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn’t a reliable source.

IndaneLove (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:N issue is definitely there.RS6784 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Sayer Daudzai

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

Not notable. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Afghanistan, and United Arab Emirates. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable. Only 2 gnews passing hits. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable. Temporary acting ambassadors even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #4: the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet and all other !votes are to keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GameClub

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

Advertisement of a game company. Lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Twitter is not a reliable reference. DMySon (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Philippines. DMySon (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any adverts here. The article is quite well written, neutral with no promotional tone, and supported by decent sources. 182.1.91.126 (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TROUT the nominator for not performing any source check at all. It has a PC Mag review a lengthy Ars Technica article and a mention in VentureBeat which easily proves it passes GNG on its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked for sockpupetry. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 08:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking

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

Normally a five-season show would be a slam dunk for notability. However, I get zero hits on GNews, Newspapers.com, or GBooks for this show, variants of its title, or the people involved with it. The only sources are a press release and a directory listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone access the New York Times? https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/arts/television/what-to-watch-on-tv-after-flags-are-waved.html The article starts with: Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking (also known as Top 20 Most Shocking, and also known simply as Top 20 in other markets) so I searched for all three names and "truTV". "top 20" gets a lot of hits, but nothing stands out, and I don't feel sorting through all of them. Dream Focus 02:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NMEDIA.

Dream Focus, the NYT article is a one-paragraph mention in a fairly routine "what to watch this weekend" article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyuri Sarossy

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only source is IMDB. De-prodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Hungary, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly lacks sourcing to show it is based on reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has certainly played roles in the top movies and series but they're only minor roles. Like EastEnders, he only appearances in two episodes, same with other movies and lacks WP:SIGCOV to crown it with. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's clearly no WP:SIGCOV largely owing to his limited career, which largely consists of minor roles.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to EP Daily#History. Viable ATD in the absence of sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews on the Run

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

Current sources are all press releases, forum posts (seriously, WTF), or other unreliable first-party coverage. I tried googling various forms of the name + "Victor Lucas" and found literally nothing. Previously kept in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Video games. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EP Daily#History, where it is mentioned, as alternative to deletion. czar 18:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you limit your search to Google Canada, you get several hits in newspapers, one discussing video game awards presented in part by the show. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Czar as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one example of SIGCOV:^[1] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as two sentences do not constitute WP:SIGCOV, and we can't write a WP:VERIFIABLE article with only a bare bones definition of what something is. Most of this article is WP:OR without any suitable sources. WP:STICKTOSOURCES tells us that if there aren't independent sources that discuss a topic, we shouldn't have an article on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Conlin, Shaun (April 3, 2003). "Shows dedicated to gamer's lifestyle". The Leader-Post. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. p. A9. Retrieved May 1, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough SIGCOV here to warrant a page Dexxtrall (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bare assertions that sources "can be found" have been challenged and the purported sources not produced. In line with WP:BURDEN, I am obligated to give a lower weight to these !votes and declare that the consensus is in favour of deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numenta

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

Does not meet notability standards of WP:CORP. All references are from the company's own sites or from their own white papers. Tagged with Proposed deletion tag, then removed by anonymous user a few hours later. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, Companies, and Technology. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many refs available over the years. StrayBolt (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I appreciate the edits of StrayBolt to find independent sources, a single Harvard Business Review article and a single Wired article (which reads like a press release about their new products) doesn't, to me, seem to pass WP:ORGIND. The Google Play app no longer seems to exist and the reference used here seems to a press release, as well. I hope that we get some additional discussion about these sources. Ian Manka (my talk page) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple more refs, some about Numenta Anomaly Benchmark. StrayBolt (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Loads of independent reliable sources can be found by clicking on the word "scholar" in the nomination statement. Some of them have been added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- None relevant though. Lots of discussion about the application of their algos and technology, I don't see any in-depth information on the company. Perhaps you can provide a link? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Computing. StrayBolt (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" and discussions about the application of the technology is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

The only reference that qualifies is the Harvard Business Review that has written on a number of occasions about the company and although I haven't managed to read the article yet, I've read many similar articles from the HBR and I'm happy to assume it will be of the same quality. But we need multiple references and none of the other references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. As things currently stand, with only one reference that meets the criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. I unable to locate another reference that meets the criteria but I'm happy to change my mind if something turns up. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I also attempted to find other articles that met the WP:NCORP (and other) standards but gave up after a while searching. Ian Manka (my talk page) 00:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftification which was suggest by two participants.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balen Shah

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

Balen Shah

Non-notable rapper, engineer, and would-be politician who does not satisfy general notability, political notability, or musical notability. A draft was submitted and declined twice, by different submitters and different reviewers, both of whom said it did not establish biographical notability. This article was then resubmitted by another editor and created in article space by another editor, and the subject still is not notable. Nothing in the article or the draft establishes general notability. As a candidate for Mayor of a large city, the subject does not satisfy political notability. The discography (which has been copied from the draft) does not establish musical notability. An article should speak for itself without the need to check the references, and this article does not, but the references have been checked. Seven of them are about his mayoral campaign, and are all primary coverage or passing mentions. None of them provide the coverage required for general notability.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Onlinekhabar	About Nepalese rap	Yes	No. Passing mention of subject.	Probably	No
2	Khabarhub.com	Story about filing as candidate for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
3	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	A press release about filing for Mayor	No	Not really		No
4	Nepalipatra.com	News about the election campaign for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
5	Setopati.com	Mention of candidacy for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
6	Makalukhabar.com	Release of full election manifesto (Did not translate, but not necessary to translate to determine independence)	No	Yes	Yes	No
7	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	About a new television show - Did not find mention of subject	Yes	No	Probably	No
8	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	Says he received a stick as his symbol for election campaign	Yes	No	Probably	No
9	theannapurnaexpress.com	Story about May 17 elections	Yes	No, passing mention of subject	Probably	Yes

There may be coordination between editors by his political campaign. This need not be addressed because he does not satisfy notability. Similarly, it is not necessary to inquire whether the editors have conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Nepal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the well known musician/rapper from Nepal, which might be the reason other users also tried to create an article of him before. About his discography, no matter who writes about it, it will still be same because he was involved in those projects, so I don't know what different I could have done for that part. One biggest challenge I have gone through with articles related to Nepali people or films is that most of the time sources are considered unreliable. All of those sources which you have considered "probably" in terms of reliability are some of the best sources which covers Nepal related news coverage. Also regarding your comments on "would-be politician", I don't think only office or position holders are considered politician, as much as I know, person running for the office or position is also considered politician. I also do not have any coordination with any of the editors who you mentioned also tried to create this article, although I do agree that most of the references in the article only covers his political campaign, so I will work on finding more sources which covers other agenda as well. I just thought it would be helpful for Wikipedia if I create an article of someone who is well-known personality to Nepali people, any amount of time I get to improve this article would be appreciated. Krishna Dahal (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not really notable person, just a candidate. Can incubate in draft till he is notable. Less chances of his win.JayMithila (talk)
Delete drafted article would be good option rather then this. Fade258 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me as well, as long as one of the articles doesn't get deleted. Drafted one or one on the main page, one of them should stay in main space. Krishna Dahal (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Calcutta Football League. Discarding the "keep" vote from a certain IPv6 user which cites WP:ITSIMPORTANT. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Calcutta Football League

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

Reviewed under New Page patrol. Stats-only article with one source. Does not pass wp:GNG or wp:Nsports North8000 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The league happened in the pre internet era and I am sure it's difficult to find the same online. When I created the article, I have mentioned that, the article is based on a page from The Sportstar. I hope sports loving editors will support this page. Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calcutta Football League. No independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Asia's oldest football league and it has (should have) independent page for each season. Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calcutta Football League. Doesn't appear to be enough for independent notability for a season article. Only one source provided.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am surprised to see this article. As an Indian football lover, this page is very much informative and you can't get it from anywhere. It is important to have all seasons updated with these type of info. Benny2409:4072:594:DB0D:6D6B:4414:94FC:C17F (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide multiple sources discussing this season in depth to show a passing of WP:GNG if you want this kept Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and redirect to Calcutta Football League Adding recommendation. Already gave current critique as nominator. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Updated two important references and this one ^[1] is very important. Requesting @Titodutta to check the same.Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/MB_ELibrary/status/1493184006568828928

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calcutta Football League - severe lack of sourcing and I'm not convinced by the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments made. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. being in the news for a current event does not establish academic notability. Nothing indicates Orsini achives that through any other channels Star Mississippi 01:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)

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

Nominating on behalf of 85.211.232.197. IP placed deletion template on page using edit summary of "this Italian professor has no biography on the Italian wikipedia and he is not a relevant voice to be added". I waited a while to see if they would open a discussion, but they didn't, so I offered on their talk page to do it for them and they asked if I could.

I don't have an opinion either way on if it should or shouldn't be deleted, but for a bit of background, this article was deleted back in 2016 due to a lack of notability, though things may (or may not) have changed recently. He has made some, er, "controversial" comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and has got some attention for those, but I'm not too sure that it allows him to get past WP:BLP1E, (although, on the other hand, there has been quite a bit of attention on him).

Again, I don't have an opinion on it either way, so my part of the nomination shouldn't be taken as a delete. (Note: The multiple speedy deletions of this article under the local equivalents of G2,G3, G11 and G12 from it.wiki seems to have got some media attention.[2][3][4][5][6]) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable. Even years ago, checking the sources, you could have noticed how his book tranlsated into English was a cited on journals, his professional career increased even further. When you manage even before reaching notability for more "pop" reasons to be cited in sources in at least three languages (Italian, English, German), there is not really a lot of doubt. The spike of attention now is an additional coating on the cake of notability, with more sources in English, Russian and Italian. All international or national news publishers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree. there are many books on left-wing terrorism in Italy after WWII, and Orsini's has not made a particular impact. He is a mid-career academic, with reasonable credentials, but certainly not somebody who would attract any wide interest, especially from non-Italian readers. His only claim to fame is his stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and that does not justify an article on him. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's in the sources in the page... you can't disagree with sources, not very wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I can add more sources about the media attention of the deletion on itwiki. I usually don't in these cases because it make itwikipedia sometimes look bad, but if you want more proof of generic notability we can put it there, it just reinforces the relevance. He did not need that, he is known internationally for his work (the book about Red Brigades) and the issue with Rai3 and his contract. That's already enough by enwiki standard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alexmar, just to clarify, the deletions on it.wiki were speedy deletions as it had met the local equivalents of speedy deletion criteria G2, G3, G11 or G12 (it seems to have been deleted at least 6 or 7 times, probably more), not because of a lack of notability, like when it was deleted from here in 2016. Can you possibly give some sources that help establish notability? I'm not questioning their existence, but it would help the discussion move toward a conclusion if you provided some. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, using deletions on another wiki as a proof is methodologically wrong if the core aspect treated there are not sources and the topic. So maybe you should point out first why citing deletions for formal reasons is important in a discussion based on content. Also, it's not correct to ask me for sources of notability like the ones in the articles are not enough, this is not something who should be done implicitly or under the umbrella of a neutrality that based on the fact you add the reasons for the deletions and not the IP, it's not strong here.

First, write down precisely why you (not the IP) think that the current academic and general sources in so many languages over the years are not enough. Not as general concept but as your personal position. At this point, I can add you even more sources about the aspects in the artice and - why not- also about the deletion procedures. Of course, when you are cited everywhere on national newspapers when you are deleted, that means you are notable. Which means that the correct thing to do for a Wiki is to write the article. Even if the wiki has a high standard, with these academic sources it's almost impossible to deny notability. If you do so, you won't have 6-7 formal deletions in a row, every expert user knows that. Even the general public nowadays knows that, like those who write to me in private asking to why I am not writing this article, which at a certain point I do.
So please write down, why do you think I should add also 4-5 national national sources about itwikipedia that proves Orsini is notable also because of this aspect. Or just add them yourself, you already add sentences to the article--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: Sorry, my comment seems to have been a bit open to interpretation, and you seem to have interpreted it differently to how I intended it.

For goodness sake, I try to help an IP to do something that they were having trouble doing on their own, and now here we are.

You've somewhat put me in a position where it is best to make my actual position on this debate clear.

Keep: I suppose that might surprise you? Anyway, next time I see an IP mess up when trying to nominate a page for deletion in good faith, I'll just ignore it. This has been far more trouble than it's worth. I'll steer clear of that page too in future. I'm also not going to contribute any further to this discussion here, as this can only go downhill. Good day/evening/afternoon/night/morning. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might not be clear because it's not in the article yet ("yet" because it's written so far on weak sources, or they are not accessible and it's just in some google previews, or it can be inferred directly from his statements) but just so you get a more in-depth context besides some citations usually extrapolated by media: Orsini comes from the left, not the right. He showed in the past for example a quite strong pro-immigration stance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Orsini comes from the left does not seem relevant to this discussion. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding strong sentence hinting in one direction without stressing this concept, means it's up to me to balance the article now. So it's relevant, beacuse unbalanced articles have bigger chance to be deleted.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author: BTW, should we also cat=S (Society topics) to this deletion procedure? If I have to enlarge the article citing also the impact on national newspapers of Orsini's article deletion that means it's a social topic as well, including all the international debate about the position of Italian pundits on this geopolitical topic (see sources). This kinda goes beyond the person. Also the themes addressed by him are in the field of sociology, they are used as sources even here for these topic, editors who write about these issues might have a qualified opinion why the author of the sources needs a contextualization. So cat=S is a correct tag as well --Alexmar983 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep]: NO, don't delete Professor Alessandro Orsini's page, please. (not signed comment by IP 80.183.58.139, move here)

Comment by author: I point out that sourced information is now removed from the article with undo. This sort of behaviour is the kind that should not occur during a deletion procedure. It would have been better to discuss in the talk page, than start a AfD. I am not very comfortable here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Russian invasion in Ukraine, Alessandro Orsini was an unknown professor whose main field of research was the left-wing terrorism in Italy. As stated by someone else already, his works have not made a particular impact on the public debate in Italy or in the academic world on this topic. He became known to the Italian public for his controversial statements on the war in Ukraine and other recent statement (like Hitler didn't want to start the II world world and children were happy during the fascism period).

Also this page cannot be used as Alessandro Orsini CV. Also I find quite bizarre that Alexmar983 wrote that Orsini 'became one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows', considering he started to appear frequently as a guest in different Italian talk-shows just two months ago.

The page in the Italian wikipedia of Alessandro Orsini is still a draft. If the Wikipedia English version will be kept, this page will be added mainly for the controversial statements of the person rather than for his academic contributions. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something that is in the source: "è diventato uno dei volti più noti dei talk show italiani che approfondiscono il tema del conflitto." Not bizzare at all, and indirectly proven by the fuzz of the deletion of its page. And tha academic contribution were enough in 2021 to prove relevance in the field. See the discussion about the book and the source in German of 2019.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Orsini has become one of the best-known faces in the Italian talk shows covering the topic of the conflict (war in Ukraine)" and instead you wrote "has become one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows'. Plus there is a difference between an article from a newspaper and a page in an online encyclopedia like wikipedia. This sentence will be valid after the end of the conflict when Orsini will not be invited anymore as a guest?

Anyway, I want to stress again that Alessandro Orsini was an unknown academic, before the war in Ukraine and his controversial statements. His published works in his specialised field never made an impact and this page cannot be used as a personal CV. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

volto noto and Il più discusso ospite di talk show televisivi del momento ... you have to express the concept somehow that he is really known. People recognizes his face, which is what notability means. So don't undo in these cases. Discuss, ask for more sources, put a template in ns0. It's clear that you will keep inserting or make me insert more and more sources that will prove the notability about this aspect (which is already enough per se to keep, per notability guidelines). Which proves to me that we should have not helped an IP to open an AfD, but teach them to discuss in the talk page about the content first. I will add both sources in the next days, please agree on a formulation that will fit in your opinion at the end of the conflict. it has been two months that newspaper about every single sentence he days, so...

Anyway, you already stressed your position. I can't do anything that reminding you the sources, start on those not on what you think in general. Also, if you think this page has a CV style, that should have been a suggestion for the motivation of the AfD, although it can be disproved quite easily. It does not focus very much on the publications and academic positions.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use the source correctly, citing the sentence partially. And the new links you have mentioned now, they say respectively 'known face' and 'the most discussed talk show guest at the moment'. You should also add the English translation (for non Italian speakers), if you write something in a language different than English.

Regarding the source, it is fair to use it correctly and not reporting the sentence omitting some parts that can change the meaning of it.

Also as an IP, I have the right to contribute to Wikipedia and to discuss regarding an AfD.

This biography page of Alessandro Orsini has not been approved on the Wikipedia Italian, where actually the person is known. Exactly why should this page have relevance in the English version?

I also find contradictory that you say that this page has not been built as a CV, when creating and writing this page you have added even the personal Facebook page of Alessandro Orsini. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking that this a discussion related to editing so should have been started teaching you how to edit and discuss in the talk page of the article before opening AfD. Especially this strange contradictory AfD where somebody might keep it but open it to express what you might think, which now seems something else. You needed to gain more expertise, maybe opening a AfD later.

Having a FB link that does not prove the article is a CV, and you are really exaggerating this aspect. it was evaluated by many users on the way before you in many weeks and nobody defined it a CV, because it is not. Also you don't know yet how to read the history of a page. I did not add any FB link, I am very tolerant considering nowadays social media are closer to a personal webpage, so would be a Twitter profile. I add these things all the time also on Wikidata, but I usually don't care about those here.

Beware: someone else would have started to point out that accusing me of putting something I did not put is a bad-faith attempt. You are just not expert, which is a shame and it would have been better, since this is probably notable, to have this discussion in the talk page so you could have been trained.

Also, you can be an IP or a user, but you lacked some literacy. I just hoped you could become a more trained editor before this opening. It's not wise to put a newbie with starting editing skills and limited knowledge of guidelines in AfD, one of the most time-consuming process sometimes. For examples, in theory now we have to focus on the content in ns0 and here, and this is not good for the article. Normally, poorly-edited deletion attempts can be removed and not-so-expert users can learn a little bit more. Here I have to train you in good faith but since you think this is confrontational, you accuse me. That's not fair.

Normal users can use on-line translators, it's really simple. I prefer everybody to do that themselves so they can use a third party service and it is not up to me because someone will accuse me of not translating correctly (I know...). I found bizarre to be lectured about sources since I am the one who had to move the discussion on them, you were more inclined to very generic statements. Another source: il professore più controverso della Tv... you can't be the most controversial if people do not compare to all the other ones, so it means you are known. In this case they made a specific dedicated article just about him.

This "unknown academic" was known on his own. I was improving that part before we ended up here. But also "pop" notability is ok, they are all some notability. However, a contradiction in this discussion is that according to you, dear British IP friend, his presence on the media is transient and this is an encylopedia, so we should not stress too much about how notable he is because of mass media and disregard this part. Yet, if a newspaper extrapolates a quote from the guy and makes an article about it, which is occurring a lot recently, that quote is the most transient thing you can find as a source, but it can be stuffed in the article according to you, and you do so. So in other words, this adding of sources implicitly recognized the notabilty because of press coverage. So... why are we here debating about the opposite? You should not add more of those, you should remove them all. Do you see this?

In the end, I am a decent person, with a name and a surname, who edited an article of a notable figure based on old and new and academic and general sources, in many languages. I don't want to spend a week to balance a cherry-picking of sources instead of adding more academic ones, which is what I would have done probably.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite distasteful that you checked my IP to see where I have been writing from and you have addressed me as 'dear British friend' (ironically). You have already stressed enough how illiterate I am on Wikipedia! Ok, that's fine!

But even adding irrelevant award (Cimitile Prize without even a website page related to the award) to the page of Alessandro Orsini, it doesn't change the fact this person has become known only for his recent controversial statements and not for his academic contribution! 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was kinda necessary in view of a long and complex AfD, see comment here. It's more distasteful IMHO to constantly look for accusations, but personal tastes I guess.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Alessandro Orsini does not fulfil any of the notability criteria for academics, as defined by Wikipedia. He has become known to the public not through his academic achievements, but through his statements in talk-shows, that do not represent independent reliable secondary sources. His research has not had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He has won no major international prizes, etc. Essentially he has not fulfilled ANY of the notability criteria for academics. He is not even widely cited, his h-index is very low.Morningbastet (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he was known to the public also because of a scandal about promotions, this is part that could have been enlarged. That's also why there is an article in German citing him as relevant in his field, for example. Than he became known for the end of the contract in late February, than for the deletion of the article on itWikipedia, than again for every minor statements he says as it is now. But you can combine the last three as a unicum (a big one). Also the criteria are respected in points 1 (significant impact is the book about Red Brigades), 2 (the awards are national), maybe 5 (he was chair of a specific institution of the University until yesterday, that basically existed because of him). That's why I never enlarged with pleasure the "controversies" part, it's transient and people overthink about it ignoring the rest. Although all combined, the stuff of the press coverage kinda prove also point 7. At this point someone will criticize all of them, but it's more fair than citing generically they are not met at all. You need to demolish all four of them to prove he is not relevant as an academic. Which you will maybe, but I have met researchers here with much limited impact. That's why years ago the page was almost kept.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983 Being "known to the public because of a scandal about promotions" has nothing to do with academic notability. There need to be multiple independent articles from independent sources to support academic notability. Luiss University does not have a high ranking internationally, and Associate professorship is far from being equal with fame, in the absence of multiple independent sources of some weight that state his notability in the field. This article is likely a promotion/advertisement. The chair at Luiss was terminated and Luiss issued a statement distancing itself from the controversial statements of Orsini. Notability, not lack of notability, must be proven. This article only reports the controversies, which did not occur in an academic setting, but in Italian TV talk shows that have nothing to do with academic settings. The Orsini biographical article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, this means that for a researcher that has done essentially all of his training in Italy, he does not even merit notability in Italy. In the anglophone world he is even less well known. Several of the sources cited in the article have not been validated as independent reliable sources with a good reputation for soundness and journalistic rigorous. At most, the name of Orsini could marginally deserve to be mentioned only in an article listing controversies on Italian TV talk shows, about the different proposals of responses/policies concerning the war waged by Russia on Ukraine. But he certainly not a notable academic, he simply does not fulfil the criteria.Morningbastet (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am already out of this so don't ping me. BTW "only the controversies" is too much. Probably when I was looking for academic sources and inserting them I was aomewhere else... Seen many times: someone stuff the articles with controversies and later someone else act as if it's the only thing there. And than if you talk about open aspect (academic relevance), the subject shift on the "controversies", and vice versa. Very unhealthy.

Also, the part about deletion on itwiki is wrong. Even national newspaper reported it as done for formal reasons not related to the content because many many people found it quite bizarre. Besides that, using itwikipedia, which has higher threshold of notability and is usually criticized for that, to detect relevance in Italy is poor method (not the first time these things occur, may I remind you the Aranzulla case?). Using a wiki in general is poor method, such a disregard for sources. May I remind you also that we come from a 10-years scandal of hr.wiki about political aspects? That's why it would be wise to stick to the sources.

I wonder how many people will reappear in this AfD after many weeks or months of inactivity just to state such "stretched" interpretations of reality. How many of them will be anonymous? I won't know, I am out of here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you should stop writing that Wikipedia Italian has blocked the publication of Alessandro Orsini page. Here some reliable news sources that prove your claims are untrue:

https://www.tpi.it/cronaca/wikipedia-cancella-biografia-professor-orsini-perche-non-ha-senso-parlare-censura-20220319881084/

https://www.bufale.net/scompare-alessandro-orsini-da-wikipedia-il-motivo-ufficiale-non-compreso-dai-complottisti/ 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? He never said anything that is false. Alexmar983 correctly claimed that it.wikipedia is controversial related to notability and should never be used to assess it. For example, may I remind you recently the deletion of Vladimiro Giacché's article?

Also, you pointed out with third-party sources that even the very selective Italian wikipedia could not disproof the notability of Orsini.

—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I checked IP because, as I predicted, IPs were going to be actively involved here (nobody wants to use their name of such public figure) and it's the only way to get an idea if you are no check-user to know who's who because they might change. For example 193.207.xx probably added a source in the article, but with a different ending (193.207.210.18). Interestingly, it looks like the two IPs who were against the notability are from UK and Sweden, all the other pro-keep IPs seem to be Italian. There might be exceptions later, just a curious fact.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As pointed out by Morningbastet, Orsini does not fulfill any of Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. I've been hesitating for a couple of days because he has arguably been "notable" in Italian mass media (mainly talk shows and tabloids) since March, for expressing views on topics outside of his academic specialty. But this seems to be a fallacy known as WP:ITSINTHENEWS. The only way I see him still being of public interest half a year from now is if he pivots from academia to politics (there is talk of that), in which case a Wikipedia page might be warranted under "politician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.195.49.49 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. Something that is temporarily in the news is not worth to be in an encyclopedia, but this is not the case. There was in-depth coverage, and an evolution of sources. this one point out for example clearly not only that Orsini is worth a dedicated article on a national magazine but also states the Orsini was already on TV before 2022. this other source involving Orsini dates back to 2007. It's a little bit nuanced than an explosion of interest after February. That's why I was very skeptical about enlarging the 2022 section and I think I was right.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely. Notable and relevant nationally Italian as a professor and essayist for the awards won and the dissemination of his books https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2004077618/ https://scholar.google.it/citations?user=sUFtCR0AAAAJ&hl=it, as well as a television personality for his countless appearances on Italian TV and for the prominence given by the sources to his statements and controversies related to his positions policies, which is also treated by international not Italian speaking sources https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/stellenvergabe-an-italiens-hochschulen-ein-echtes-100.html https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/italien-luigi-di-maio-putin-russland-1.5562597 https://www.lopinion.fr/international/la-fascination-interessee-de-la-television-italienne-pour-les-opinions-pro-poutine?_amp=true .176.247.12.196 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has yet failed to make a mark on WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Only 424 cites on GS, as yet is far too low to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep even the very rigid Italian Wikipedia cannot disproof the notability of Orsini. They are debating when (not if) to move it right now!

Discussing about recent information is unpractical, considering the coverage in older and more stable sources. Orsini did not just appear only now on newspaper, he was already cited in the past. All these details are however too recent and controversial. For example here orsini is very critical of the reconstruction of the closure of the department given by newspapers, so it's the sort of critical topic that should be taken with calm later.

The first part, the one which was enlarged before the AfD was opened, was the most useful one, it's strange to "help" pushing in this territory, IMHO.

The English version of its book about Italian Red Brigades is massively cited in the literature It's probably woth an article per se.

That's why he fulfills the general guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics)—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'rigid' Italian Wikipedia? The page has not yet been approved. Full stop.

To support the fact that Orsini's book is 'massively' cited (according to whom?) you literally posted a link to a post from Orsini Facebook personal page. And regarding the other link (which is to Google scholar) and you restrict the research to 'scientific articles', the result for citations is just 1 (ONE). I am speechless about your misleading comment. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GS is not restricted to only scientific articles. See his profile there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Also I want to point out that the 424 citation on Google Scholar are referring to two different people named 'Alessandro Orsini'. And most of them have been published not by the sociologist, but a researcher in pediatric neurology.85.211.232.197 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP said in the literature, not "in the academic literature". Also, as a person who created with another user the Wikidata items of these people to avoid confusion, and I hope a decent expert of bibliometry, I remind you that citations are not potatoes, they vary per sector. I agree that the book about the Red Brigades, which also shows more citations under its Italian titles and was debated over the years, it's probably worth an article per se.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Facebook link was never used to proved the citations by the IP, it's there to remind that recent news-related information should not be "stuffed" in an article, they are controversial and unstable. I agree with that, there were plenty of sources on the way and available way more stable, but someone really wanted to go this way. In any case, if there are sources entirely dedicated to Orsini, as a whole (that is, in-depth coverage), they seem to be ignored even if recent.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I live in Italy. Everyone I know, in my circle of friends and acquaintances, knows Alessandro Orsini. In 2018, not everyone knew him, but he gave a speech in the Italian National Parliament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k4B_h4Gkc). Therefore, there's no reasonable doubt about him deserving to appear on the Italian wikipedia; but there may be reasonable doubts about the Italian wikipedia deserving to have a page on him, given the way they are dealing with the issue of the final approval of his page [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto cassone (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author: I am here again because I have just connected the itwikipedia article on Wikidata. So I was curious to read here how it was going. Now, itwikipedia can do whatever they want (maybe they will put it back on the draft? The consensus for the move was however pretty clear)... as you can imagine from some comments here, the whole story turned out to be already a discrete disaster of communication during the last weeks, but it's wrong in general to use other versions to evaluate notability.Maybe now this aspect will be very much appreciated, who knows...

In any case few people with a name and a surname will ever make a public statement that Orsini is not notable here in Italy. Even agreeing on high standards of notability, this person was on the national and academic sources already years ago and there are so many sources of different types over the years that you cannot possibly get consensus for the deletion, which is something it should have been explained to people with limited competence instead of pushing for AfD.

I might say, I disagree with the concept discussed on itwikipedia that the page should not have been published because of possible tensions despite being notable. From a practical point of view, the page can be handled. For example, here it remained for circa two weeks, no big deal. Experts users approved, it was there to be enlarged... Only the AfD attracted the noise and made impossible to discuss properly about the content. Personally, I won't do as well. too much bile, there at least three clearly false accusations in this procedure.

At least we are lucky this AfD did not arrive on national newspapers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I note that, further to discussion on this point above, Italian Wikipedia has now promoted this subject to article space. I view their collection of activities as sufficient to merit inclusion here, also. BD2412 T 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alexmar983 can you stop bludgeoning the discussion please. You don't need to write long screeds to everyone as it discourages participation in the discussion. Also it's irrelevant what has happened on IT. The only issue is do they pass GNG, is this BLP1E and is PROF met? Can we focus further discussion down to this please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author: I was away from here from nine days. That looks like a considerable amnount of time. In the meantime, I see people commenting every issue including reporting false accusations, but nobody cared. That looks like bludgeoning but wasn't it a problem at all? it.wikipedia was not relevant but why stating it to the only person who said so and not to the people who used it for days?

I know that not writing or writing again after nine days would have made no difference in the result, but I think a reader should notice this as well because I will not pay the price for everyone. I know it's easier that way, to blame just one person, but it's not correct. The problem was opening the AfD so rapidly. As usual, I am out, I was only here because I connected the itwiki version--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if I deleted the text by mistake a few days ago, I write again my opinion. Keep per WP:GNG: there is significant coverage of secondary reliable sources which started more than a decade ago. I would like also to point out that this AfD was strange: people tried a lot to talk about an AfD procedure on another wiki, but later it was reminded to ignore that fact when the article was published there. --176.200.60.24 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the others saying that he ultimately became famous in Italy because of his strong controversies on Russian conflict, not much for his academics studies --Broncoviz (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Giada De Laurentiis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Bash

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

Unsourced stub since 2009. Zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Giada de Laurentiis where this ref can be added. I didn't find anything more substantial. NemesisAT (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Rhine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE; probably unsalvageable as I'm unable to find much more than salacious and/or passing references to this person; media since the Big Brother show was on air appear to be unusable items like "Big Brother Status Check: Which Couples Are Still Together?" This probably explains why nobody has bothered to expand this since it was tagged ten years ago with a single reference. What should be the BLP's most notable show – co-host or whatever of 3 Guys in a Booth – doesn't even have a Wikipedia article and apparently only played on some US terrestrial digital subchannels. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is clearly not there to justify an article. Wikipedia is not meant to be a tabloid mirror, and that is what we would have to become to even come close to have enough sourcing to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG due to lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was supposed to remain a redirect before it was turned into an article with apparent WP:OR and unsourced content. I see there is not enough content or sources to justify a stand-alone article. >>> Extorc.talk 06:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The deletion rationale was not challenged with policy-based arguments. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salif Gueye

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

this is basically a fan site praising Gueye with nothing that's actually sourced to independent rs - just a brief 15 seconds of fame for dancing on Ellen, he never won an awrd and theres no coverage otherwise PRAXIDICAE💕 16:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Fashion, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page have been improved, and added another achievements of artist. Rma17 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rma17 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep: The page have been improved, and added another achievements of artist. Rma17 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Sources are passing mention or fansites. LearnIndology (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been cleared. Need some help and check again. Rma17 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to note that Salif does have 2.3 million instagram followers - and while I'd hardly want Wikipedia to be composed by the basis of how many social media followers a person has, it does lend credibility that the individual has some degree of following / "real world notability" and isn't simply a backup dancer or similar A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Salif Gueye's name is already on Wikipedia in another pages. He performed in Montreux Jazz Festival, Michael Jackson night, etc. Also Michael JAckson's official site adds Salif Gueye's performs. He called Next to Michael Jackson and continues his history. Rma17 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I31f6OOtbkE&list=WL&index=22&t=35s Rma17 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Followed are not a good measure. Followers and likes can both and are often bought. PRAXIDICAE💕 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salif Gueye have verified instagram account. It means followers and likes are real. Rma17 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it absolutely doesn't. Instagram doesn't verify each follower of verified accounts. Get real. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They cannot check each follower one by one. Fake followers makes low activity of profile, which instagram can check: Followers are raising, Activity is going down. Actually Instagram gives verify for famous people. Rma17 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If u thinks that his followers and likes are boughted, check the comments (2500). Rma17 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment https://youtube.com/shorts/i4Z20zw6X7A?feature=share

Here is some screen saves from Salif's instagram profile. People recognizing him and taking picture with him. He is famous one in his early age. Rma17 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is policy based. Please do not bludgeon the conversation if you're not going to provide policy based input. Star Mississippi 02:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Clark (host)

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

Non-notable host. Most of the shows he hosted are redlinks. Zero sources found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:03, 4 May 2022 (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)} 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamosta

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

This article about a Kurdish word fails the general notability guideline. There are issues with the current sourcing which fails to support some of the claims. However the reason for deletion is the lack of significant coverage needed to develop an artcle that is more than a dictionary entry. There is already this Wiktionary item which contradicts the article. The best source I have found is this, which again contradicts the article and is not enough to suggest notability. Gab4gab (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 1 May 2022 (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)} 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amitriyaan

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

Was CSD for promotional purposes, article does not appear to be hence not a speedy delete. Contested on talk page. Sending to AfD for discussion administratively. Tawker (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tawker (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure in what universe this isn't a raging advertisement, but he also doesn't appear to be notable. He's had a few film roles but nothing that's received particularly significant coverage and most of what is in the article is blatant mass produced Indian churnalism. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With more than 8 movies as a lead and parallel lead roles and 2 webseries and still page is being discussed to be deleted is lil strange . Many actors who have not even done even half of Amit Riyaan's work profile are already on Wikipedia . Someone called praxidicae put the point it's ' Indian churnalism ' . It itself sound RACIST and biased with half knowledge . regarding coverage in today's world

almost everything is bought in media world and gets covered. That is real advertisement more than work profile. Someone who has niche fan following and isn't into bought media coverage is being discussed for advertisement issue is not at all logical and fair . Sandeepth2785 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandeepth2785 The media in India, especially the entertainment media, has a few respected outlets. Those which are not respected rehash PR stories. This is termed churnalism. While Praxidicae might possibly have explained this in more detail it is an unfortunate fact that most entertainment media in India has a less than stellar reputation.

Since churnalism in this class of media is a fact, and 'Indian food' is not a racially unacceptable term, it is a large leap to suggest that the deployment of the term 'Indian churnalism' is racially motivated. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see WP:ADMASQ here. I have sample checked the references and find interviews with Riyaan, material about some of the things he has been in but not necessarily mentioning him, and nothing to show that he passes WP:NACTOR. I see a jobbig actor who may make it one day. At best it is WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The outcome of the deletion discussion is not helped by a copyright picture having been uploaded to Commons and included (for now) in the Infobox 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now a further unpermissioned picture added to the article is at Commons 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the transclusion issue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first order of notability of a living person is sourcing. The bar is raised higher than with other articles and must follow Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. There should be multiple independent and reliable sources that providing significant coverage to advance notability.

There is no set number but at least three would be enough to "convince anybody". There is a difference in a source that supports content and one that advance notability even though the last can certainly also support content.

The first source I checked, about a feature film titled "Zee5 Movie: Atkan Chatkan; Cast: Lydian Nadhaswaram, Yash Rane, Sachin Chaudhary, Tamanna Dipak, Ayesha Vindhara; Direction: Shiv Hare; Rating", was confusing and disappointing.

I am not up to date on "Indian churnalism" but coud imagine this might be an appropriate discription. I do not think anyone should have to dig around to try to be convinced there is notability. If sourcing is not improvable then notability is absolutetly not proven. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. This AfD was in fact correctly transcluded in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 23 when it was nominated, but a subsequent move confused cyberbot and XFDcloser and led to it appearing in multiple daily logs. It is now only listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 1 and can be closed or relisted as normal after 2022-05-08. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the explanation! I figured it was listed somewhere given the early votes but wanted to err on the side of caution/full visibility. Star Mississippi 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 07:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Walker (entrepreneur)

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

Contested CSD, has several notable sources but article does read promotional. Procedural route to AfD. Tawker (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tawker (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi there - I removed a couple of moments of quotations that might have been read as promotional. There's a ton of reputable sources about this person and the research done here was comprehensive, not just cherrypicking positive things. It's an account of the things he's done in his career. BubbleBub (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've opened three sources, all substantive features, from USA Today, NPR and CNBC, and this is obviously a notable subject from what I'm seeing. Easily meets WP:GNG. If it's promotional, rewrite, but there's plenty to work with here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the latest here? We can wait another week and then I'll remove template? If you think it'd be helpful, Tawker, maybe we could cross-post the discussion a couple other places? BubbleBub (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there are several sources that establish notability, as the nominator suggests, then the article should be rewritten to be less promotional, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article would benefit from some editing, but that does not change the fact that the subject is notable. The amount of sigcov is not trivial. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Pants

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2015 for lack of sources, and I see nothing proving that any sources have come forth since. Tried to prod, but somehow Twinkle did not notice the prevoius AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No change from my previous vote! on this article; a four-week filler series containing filler itself and sourced to "lost media wikis", and not even notable enough for mention in List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only relevant GNews result is a listicle published on a forum. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chris Wade (writer). MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson and Fogg

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

This is the page for a musical project. While it has had several well-known guest musicians, and has produced a prolific catalogue of music, it doesn't seem to have garnered any media coverage beyond a handful of reviews in minor publications and the occasional play on specialist music shows. I can't find anything that would satisfy the criteria listed at WP:BAND. As an AtD, the page could conceivably be redirected to the page for its founder member Chris Wade (writer), although that page also has questionable notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chris Wade (writer); the band gets a lot of mentions, along the lines of "Chris Wade's eclectic music project" and so forth, but nothing independent seems to be out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per TF (above) and ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Scorseses

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

Non-notable musical group. Lacking significant coverage PepperBeast (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. PepperBeast (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2011-04 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:NMUSIC. I was thinking maybe it could pass by virtue of having released two albums on a major label (criterion 5), but it seems that their ungoogleable first album, Magnumopus, was self-released, as on iTunes it is copyright "The Scorceses LLC." I'll note that, by virtue of the name of this band, it is quite hard to find any coverage, particularly WP:RS. Lkb335 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Alkarim

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

I found no significant coverage for this news anchor. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A one minute Google news search turned up the following: BBC coverage of her as a victim of crime^[1], BBC coverage of an event she organised on feminism where no women were invited^[2], albeit a quote, but covered in Daily Jang on International Women's Day 2018.^[3]

References

^ "کراچی میں سٹریٹ کرائم آج بھی بڑا چیلنج". BBC News اردو (in Urdu). 24 January 2017.
^ "'پینل یا مینل! ہم تنگ آگئے ہیں'". BBC News اردو (in Urdu). 21 November 2019.
^ "صنف نازک نہ کہو، یہ ترقی کی کنجی ہے". jang.com.pk. 8 March 2018.

On those alone, not quite enough to pass the GNG, but more thorough searching would be helpful. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP, I have modified upto some extent ( and yes I can expand the article as well) with secondary citations removing all the primary citations. --_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources aren't even about her for the most part and the interview is a primary source. SL93 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (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)} 03:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 07:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralston Cash

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

Non Notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Georgia (U.S. state). • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage such as this [8][9][10][11] Alvaldi (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as a professional athlete he is notable according to WP guidelines.Chris VDR (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline that makes him notable just for being a professional athlete. Spanneraol (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Playing MiLB does not confer automatic notability. Unclear whether Alvadi's sources have been evaluated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass GNG per Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the four articles linked by Alvadi. All four are detailed articles on Cash, and all four are from reliable secondary sources. Hatman31 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I can't see a reason to relist this a third time. Closing as no consensus as there has been zero participation, and taking into consideration the previous AfD discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Python Paste

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination for an IP who prodded the article with the edit summary "Not notable. There are no independent sources". As the article was previously AFD'd in 2010, it is not eligible for prod so I am moving the discussion to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eroica Classical Recordings

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

Non-notable record label, zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Some amusing whoppers in this article. The claim about their Bartók CD is contradicted by a Hungaroton disc with Barnabás Kelemen and Zoltán Kocsis that has the exact same program. (It's looking at me from the shelves next to my desk!) If I remember correctly, Isabelle Faust and André Gertler also recorded the same program prior to the one made by the above label. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This ought to be beyond uncontroversial: there are zero independent sources. At this stage, this is not remotely well-attested enough to come near WP:NCORP.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a company therefore NCORP applies, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G4's Late Night Peepshow

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

Unsourced since 2007. Found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors in a WP:BEFORE. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 23:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Naghavi

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

Google Scholar does show him as one of the authors in several dozen papers with hundreds or thousands of citations each. However, he is one of the several hundred researchers part of the Global Burden of Disease study, and each of these dozens of highly cited papers lists every possibly relevant one of them and thus having several hundred authors each, or, in some specialized topics, dozens of authors each.

According to his CV, he is currently head of the University of Washington's institute for health metrics and evaluation , which runs this and similar projects and is there included on all of their papers. This does not mean he has any special academic or scientific responsibility for any or all of them, any more than the Dean of the School would have if he insisted on putting his name on everything the school produced.

In this situation the ordinary WP:PROF guidelines fail. He might have been notable as a research before being an administrator, but this is not shown; our standards for being a notable administrator discuss only being president of a n institution or head of an independent school.

I am not saying an adequate article would be impossible, but this is not. I will gladly withdraw the afd is someone wishes to clarify the role(s), and can find good 3rd party truly independent references for his importance as an administrator that are more than the usual PR.

We've had a number of similar papers in the physical sciences for people who are just one of a group --usually I would have no hesitation in rejecting them as non-notable , but he might possibly be in a more important actual position than just member DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Iran. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has huge citations for publications with many authors, as the nomination states. But even just looking at first-author papers he has citation counts of 3424 ("Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death"), 540 ("The burden of disease and injury in Iran 2003"), 469 ("Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data"), 456 ("Global, regional, and national burden of suicide mortality 1990 to 2016"), etc. I think this is enough to demonstrate a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP and Expand. He is widely interviewed by several major publications including The Guardian^[1], HuffPost^[2], WebMD^[3], CNN^[4], BBC^[5]^[6] etc. Moreover he has tons of The Lancet papers^[7]^[8].

The article should be re-written properly.--_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, there is WP:SIGCOV both as an academic and as a public intellectual. I find it satisfies WP:SCHOLAR unambiguously.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Sepsis deaths around world 'twice as high as previously thought'". the Guardian. The Guardian. 16 January 2020.
^ "Sepsis Symptoms To Look Out For, As Study Reveals It Causes One In Five Deaths Globally". HuffPost UK. HuffPost. 17 January 2020.
^ "U.S. Life Expectancy Trails Other Wealthy Nations". WebMD. WebMD.
^ CNN, Susan Scutti. "Violent deaths increased 143% in 2016". CNN. CNN. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
^ "Watch out: 1 in 5 deaths globally from sepsis". BBC News 中文 (in Simplified Chinese). BBC News.
^ "Los 6 países donde se producen la mitad de las muertes por arma de fuego en el mundo (y 5 son latinoamericanos)". BBC News Mundo (in Spanish).
^ Steel, Nicholas; Ford, John A.; Newton, John N.; Davis, Adrian C. J.; Vos, Theo; Naghavi, Mohsen; Glenn, Scott; Hughes, Andrew; Dalton, Alice M.; Stockton, Diane; Humphreys, Ciaran; Dallat, Mary; Schmidt, Jürgen; Flowers, Julian; Fox, Sebastian; Abubakar, Ibrahim; Aldridge, Robert W.; Baker, Allan; Brayne, Carol; Brugha, Traolach; Capewell, Simon; Car, Josip; Cooper, Cyrus; Ezzati, Majid; Fitzpatrick, Justine; Greaves, Felix; Hay, Roderick; Hay, Simon; Kee, Frank; Larson, Heidi J.; Lyons, Ronan A.; Majeed, Azeem; McKee, Martin; Rawaf, Salman; Rutter, Harry; Saxena, Sonia; Sheikh, Aziz; Smeeth, Liam; Viner, Russell M.; Vollset, Stein Emil; Williams, Hywel C.; Wolfe, Charles; Woolf, Anthony; Murray, Christopher J. L. (3 November 2018). "Changes in health in the countries of the UK and 150 English Local Authority areas 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016". The Lancet. pp. 1647–1661. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32207-4.
^ "Variation in the COVID-19 infection–fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: a systematic analysis". The Lancet. 16 April 2022. pp. 1469–1488. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02867-1.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per User:David Eppstein. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At a cursory glance, this might look like an article that should be easy to discard but the references unearthed as above are solid. It's a keeper. -The Gnome (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4. ✗plicit 03:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G4's Training Camp

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

Unsourced since 2009. Zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4 - I was unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources regarding the show. As it is listed on the main program list for the network already, a redirect there would probably be a good idea, though. Rorshacma (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4. My search didn't find much either: although there are a few passing mentions in the press, there's nothing that comes close to GNG-qualifying significant coverage. I agree with Rorshacma that a redirect is a reasonable (and cheap) alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible but zero input and no one contesting the deletion. I see no reason to relist this a 3rd time when there's no indication that's going to change. Star Mississippi 01:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Grace

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. He's rubbed elbows with a few big names, but gained no notability from it. Current sourcing is all passing mentions, interviews, and other assorted cherrypicking. No better sources found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Jallow

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

Article fails notability for sport with lists and databases cited. Article is created by an SPA; suspected this fellow is actually the author of the article. Whiteguru (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Whiteguru (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally created this article on behalf of my player Alpha Jallow. I basically used Alphaj97 to create his article because I have many players which am managing and I cannot remember every username. Centric Sports Management is my agency name. Here is the link of my agency name on Transfermarket including all the players I am managing and Alpha Jallow is among them; https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/centric-sports-management/beraterfirma/berater/7062 Alphaj97 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make a formal declaration of this. Instructions have been left on your talk page. You are also required to disclose any other accounts that you are operating per WP:SOCK. Please do not carry on editing until this has been done. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I would never violate Wikipedia policy. I voluntary created this article and I do not hold or operating under any other accounts apart from Alphaj97, email: socceragentuk@gmail.com Alphaj97 (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This completely contradicts your post just above where you say and I quote "my player Alpha Jallow" and "I basically used Alphaj97 to create his article because I have many players which am managing and I cannot remember every username." In the second sentence you admit to using more than one account and you admit to managing this player. This is a conflict of interest per WP:COI and you absolutely need to declare this. Repeated failure to do so will lead to you losing your editing privileges. You are employed by Centric Sports Management and so have a clear conflict of interest here. I will send you another warning on your talk page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is not like Samuel Eto'o or Drogba because he has not play for Barcelona or Chelsea but believe me where he came from he is notable. He is on FIFA TMS because he is professional. Every young talent professional need a chance to be seen on Wikipedia if the sources are verifiable. He's case all the sources on the page are verifiable. I am not here to attack anyone but before going ahead and propose for a deletion, you should how these young talent professionals are working so hard to fulfil their dreams in the higher level. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
seven sources lacks significant coverage? Are you serious? Just because you don't know or have not heard the name of the subject does not mean you have to be judgemental. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alphaj97 My prior knowledge of the player is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is if it can be shown that the player has multiple sources of significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. Database links like these[12][13][14][15] do not go towards GNG per WP:NOTDATABASE. Of the other three, none is WP:SIGCOV as they don't address the subject in much detail, they just state that he was signed and then fired 24 hours later. Even if those where significant sources, they are all from July 2019 which is not WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point. I am an Intermediary Football Agent based in the United Kingdom, I worked with several many players mainly from Africa and Asia. I have been following this subject since 2015 on his journey. He is listed on Wikipedia under "Foreign players played in India" scrol down to "Gambia"and you see his name under the club name "Prayag United SC".

However, one of the reason I created this article for the subject is because Wikipedia have not created one for him back then when he was eligible for it. In 2020 the subject got an injury (knee fracture). He is still recovering from that trauma was unable to compete for two years. I suggest you know these people and what their going through before making judgments. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alphaj97 My opinion and !vote is purely based on the lack of significant coverage about this individual. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nore is it a place to right great wrongs so while it is sad to hear about his injuries, they don't have any bearings on this discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His injury do not have any bearings on this discussion I know that. I mentioned it, so you know his conditions before blindly voting for deletion. All the sources provided here are verifiable and legit. I do not understand why people are so bias. I rest my case. Alphaj97 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THe sources cited are entirely insufficient to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have work in football industry for the past 19 years but I have never seen this type of temperament from public. I often came across with a lot of wikipedia pages with only one or two sources outdated and they have never been deleted. Is it because the subject "Alpha Jallow" does not have an updated sources which makes him ineligible for wikipedia page? It is unfair judgement.

Simply because their not notable in your eyes does not mean where they came from they are not. As an African player abroad, everybody in your native country and environment probably have heard about about you. Is very sad to see this judgements. Alphaj97 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't complicated. To qualify for an article, it needs to be demonstrated that the subject (Jarrow in this case) has had significant coverage in independent sources. 'Significant' as understood from the relevant policies, as interpreted by contributors with experience of how they apply. Not 'significant' because someone connected with the subject says it isn't fair otherwise. Not 'significant' because someone connected with the subject makes unverifiable claims about 'everybody' knows. This is an entirely routine procedure on Wikipedia. People with conflicts of interest routinely get their attempts at promotion deleted. If you have contributed to Wikipedia before, but have yet to become aware of this, that is unfortunate, but that is how it works. I suggest you stop badgering people here, and let the discussion run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis below, fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC. Not even a case of WP:ONEEVENT as the one event itself that provided routine coverage (him signing for an amateur Turkish club then being swiftly dismissed) is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.playmakerstats.com/player.php?id=675093			Stats page, no coverage	✘ No
https://www.zerozero.pt/equipa.php?id=3548&epoca_id=148			Stats	✘ No
https://soccer.everythingforfootball.com/player/alpha-jallow-1997/	?	?	Stats	✘ No
https://afrinik.com/gambian-footballer-alpha-jallow-fired-24-hours-after-signing/			Not significant. We know that he signed for the club then was dismissed. We know that he is Gambian. No other info about the player is discussed.	✘ No
https://africafeeds.com/2019/07/21/the-gambian-footballer-signed-and-sacked-in-a-day/			Little coverage. Talks a bit about Lamin Jallow but not much depth about Alpha	✘ No
https://www.trtspor.com.tr/haber/futbol/menemensporda-cifte-imza-187002.html			Routine transfer announcement	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject only had three years of his career from 2016-2019. He has a brighter future ahead of him, to achieve his dreams. Injury is every athlete's nightmare. I would continue to help him achieve his dream with or without wikipedia page. As soon as he recovers he will get back to the pitch.

You are the wikipedia administrator, whatever you decide I will take it in good faith but I will suggest keeping his page until he gets back on his feet. Thank you! Alphaj97 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim to future notability is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If he does indeed carve a successful career later on, then the article can be created again. We shouldn't create articles on the off chance that they might be notable in the future. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not written on off chance basis. He is indeed notable. Alphaj97 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG at the moment as there is no significant references to his career so far. If as above he comes back from his injury and gets significant coverage then article can always be recreated then but as it stands now, it fails.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why so much hate in here. SMH Alphaj97 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election. ✗plicit 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Libertarian National Committee chair election

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

Merge into 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election. I really don't see this getting over WP:NEVENT on its own with the available sourcing, especially when there exists an article for the broader event. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Libertarianism, Politics, and United States of America. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per nomination, it can easily be covered in the broader article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no justification for a separate article here, ~~all~~ appropriate material can easily be contained within the LP Convention article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible, but no one is contesting this deletion. Star Mississippi 01:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Spank

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

Programming blocks are usually not notable on their own unless they receive extensive coverage, and that seems not to be the case here. It's not even mentioned on G4 (American TV network) so I see no point in a redirect. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MMO Report

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

Non-notable podcast, sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears no effort was expended to demonstrate any sort of notability when the article was made, nor do reliable sources appear to be out there. The DEPROD did not give a legitimate reason or source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I've found this [16] but that's it. Timur9008 (talk) 23:03 ,7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Malibu Beach House

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

Shows were set here, but the house itself does not gain notability from that alone. Sources are very sparse at best, being mostly name-drops, primary, or 404. WP:BEFORE found only passing mentions, Wikipedia mirrors, and false positives. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are sparse, and what is there doesn't establish separate notability for the house. -fuzzy510 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Own

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

Very likely fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG, as it's been unsourced since 2009. Title is hard to search for, but adding keywords did not improve the results. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Murphy, Jill (2022-02-28). "My Own. TV review by Jill Murphy, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The review notes: "My Own takes celebrity worship to a new low. Not only does it emphasize the importance of appearance, but it goes a step farther and rewards those who happen to resemble someone famous. This is a damaging message to tweens and teens, who are forming their identity and ideas about how dating works -- they're already under enough pressure to look good, but now they need to look like a celebrity too? What ever happened to individuality? The show also offers the confusing idea that the best way to show you're a fan is to date someone who reminds you of your idol...huh?"
2. Jones, Jen (April 2006). "MTV Moves". Dance Spirit. Vol. 10, no. 4. p. 112. ProQuest 209289734. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "On MTV's new dating show "My Own," enthusiastic wannabes are transformed into carbon copies of the pop stars they idolize, in hopes of capturing a fellow fan's heart. Though training these budding Justins and Ciaras may sound like a tall task, the mission was far from impossible for the show's choreographer, Chantai Robson. Off-screen, Robson has made a career out of coaching up-and-coming artists such as Hope Seven on personality and performance. To prepare choreography for "My Own," Robson watched hours of music videos to adapt the moves for contestants. [The show airs 6 pm EST Monday through Friday.) On a shooting schedule of several shows per week, Robson found herself memorizing the dance steps of everyone from Ashlee Simpson to Jennifer Lopez at a breakneck pace. Added to the pressure was the challenge of getting the contestants camera-ready to perform."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow My Own to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NOT. Delete.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE refers to events and thus isn't applicable here. NemesisAT (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree. A TV show is a string of events. One review and one short interview are simply nothing but indication of routine coverage. You can expect this from every single TV show that has existed, ever. Lurking shadow (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage, which does not apply to television series, which are not events. My Own received substantial coverage in a review and significant coverage in an article about the show's choreographer's work on the show. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2022 (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)} 01:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overtone (musical group)

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

They've done a lot, but nothing that seems to pass WP:BAND. Current sources are all promotional or primary. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's just about enough here to meet WP:GNG with this, this, and this. Frankly I really don't see how deleting this would benefit Wikipedia's readers given an article has already been written with no obvious problems and said article has received over 400 views in the past month. NemesisAT (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't made my mind up yet about the article, but I'm not sure if any of the links you've provided would qualify as WP:RS. Park3r (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criterion 10 of WP:BAND, having performed half the soundtrack of Invictus in tandem with a small amount of coverage, mostly related to the group's connection with the Eastwoods 1 2 3 4 5. It's not mentioned in the article, but the band were also stars of Mrs. Eastwood & Company. All of those separately would not qualify this group for its own article, but put all together, I'm inclined to keep. That being said, the article needs serious work. Lkb335 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:BAND. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets MUSICBIO. Sources are adequate. Samanthany (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate TV (TV series)

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

All I could find was IMDb, YouTube uploads, and a personal blog. No better sourcing found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Waters, Harry F. (1990-03-19). "Down to the sea in shtik. MTV's undry humor". Newsweek. Vol. 115, no. 12. p. 55. ISSN 0028-9604. EBSCOhost 9003191019.
  The article notes: "Each week "Pirate TV's" scruffy crew. supposedly transmitting from a barge off Manhattan, take aim at the deadliest forms of airwave pollution. Commercials, for openers. Among the products pitched so far are a cat food called Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whiskers and a fantasy-based video game known as Dungeons and Drag Queens. A spoof of ESPN introduced the Extra-Sensory Perception Network (Filmed highlights of tomorrow's games! Lists of players who are going to be injured!) Semiregular features include "Rastapiece Theater," which presents dreadlock versions of the classics, and "The Above Sea World of Jacques Cousteau," wherein the crew of the Calypso invades dry land to liberate the fish in pet stores. ("Fortunately, Armand's spear gun makes quick work of the would-be slave trader and we are able to free our tiny friends.") ... MTV's programmers are so delighted with "Pirate TV"--it has tripled the ratings for its Friday-night slot--that they're considering moving it to Saturday night to compete with NBC's comedic powerhouse."
2. Takiff, Jonathan. (1990-01-25). "Just When You Thought It Was Boring ... MTV Gets a New Attitude" (pages 1 and 2). Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Primo pick of the new MTV litter is "Pirate TV," debuting tomorrow night at 10 with a repeat broadcast at 7 p.m. Spinning of Britain's real-life pirate radio stations — illegal broadcasters headquartered on boats in international waters — this hour-long fantasy imagines a troupe of technocrats commandeering MTV's signal from a beat-up barge off the coast of New York City. Like SCTV, Pirate TV sends up TV shows and commercials with gambits like "The Above Sea World of Jacques Cousteau," wherein our daring, wet-suited explorers venture onto dry land to free the captive animals in a pet store. Maury Povich makes a guest appearance to claim credit for the "Pirate TV" concept (actually, a couple of his former writers now produce this MTV show) and ... "Pirate TV" is so densely packed with gags and mimicry that I can't believe the show can be cranked out on a weekly basis for long."
3. Swift, David (1990-04-04). "Doublespeak, anguished English, life after videos". Jackson Hole News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "I hope "Pirate TV" shows up, at any rate, because it's the first television show I've seen to come close to matching the sheer energy and irreverence of underground radio in the Sixties. SCTV-style, the "Pirate TV" cast, a collection of ne'er-do-wells, cruises off the coast, in international waters, interrupting normal broadcasting with their version of good television. Among their offerings: [a list with four bullet points]"
4. Miller, Ron (1990-01-22). "Some radical changes at revolutionary MTV". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I've seen clips from one new show, Pirate TV, which premieres Friday night, and it's truly different from the usual MTV fare. It has a cast of "regulars," bizarre characters who are supposed to be running a pirate TV station in a barge off the coast of New York. They put on parodies of commercials, movie trailers and other short comedy bits. ... Maybe the funniest, though, was the takeoff on the anti-drug ads that show an egg frying in a pan to illustrate what your brain is like on drugs. This shows you what your brain looks like on drugs — with a side of bacon and whole wheat toast."
5. Duffy, Mike (1990-02-04). "Newcomers to MTV are musical — and a whole lot more". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Pirate TV": Floating around on their own barge while transmitting a whacked mix of commercial parodies and weirdo programming, a gang of youthful pirates takes control of MTV for an hour of comedy and videos every week. Program manager Brian, sidekick Skip and a crew of addled assistants create the mayhem. Including such nutcase moments as pro wrestler Sargeant Slaughter singing "Sunrise, Sunset" or tabloid TV star Maury Povich reading "A Current Affair Bedtime Story." Fridays at 10 p.m."
6. Larson, Lanny (1990-02-09). "'Pirate TV' Crew Takes Over MTV". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The caption provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The caption notes: "It looks like MTV until the "pirates," a crew of comics, take over twice each weekend, substituting off-the-wall weirdness and a few videos from the relatively staid programming on the cable music network."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pirate TV to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources listed above by Cunard, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several sources, some dedicated to the show, someone with dedicated coverage about the show in wider article about MTV shows. Passess GNG. I have cited two of Cunard's sources in article to deal with no citations maintained tag. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to G4 (American TV network). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (American TV series)

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

Unsourced since 2009. Only source is an obit on one of the hosts. Zero sourcing found. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find this though it doesn't have enough coverage on its own to meet WP:GNG, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to G4 (American TV network) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The Associated Press article that NemesisAT found can be used to verify some of the material in the article that can be used for a merge. Cunard (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to G4 (American TV network) per Cunard. Timur9008 (talk) 22:45 ,7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing identified and included here counters nom assertion of no hits. Star Mississippi 23:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revealed with Jules Asner

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

Completely unsourced since 2008. Zero hits on GNews, GBooks, TelevisionWeek archives. Newspapers.com hits were 100% TV Guide listings. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Collins, Monica (2002-04-21). "TV Plus - Clickers - News channels spinning the facts". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "E! seems to be throwing its full weight behind Jules Asner and her series "Revealed" (10 p.m. weeknights), in which Asner slobbers over stars. Asner doesn't work hard. All she does is latch onto the latest celebrity who's plugging a new movie and then she lobs embarrassing softball questions. Nothing's "revealed" except that Asner can't ask anything tough or truly revealing. Her interview with Celine Dion was nauseatingly sugary. On Wednesday, Asner goes toe-to-toe with Angelina Jolie, the star who has committed many sharing violations and spills more than you ever wanted to know. Even in this situation, count on Asner to tread lightly. The title of the show should be changed from "Revealed With Jules Asner" to "Congealed With Jules Asner" because each interview turns into a sticky, sycophantic mess."
2. "Asner chats with stars; '20/20' visits the Bushes". The Standard-Times. 2001-12-04. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "E! kicks off the new interview series "Revealed with Jules Asner" with back-to-back chats with two of Hollywood's biggest stars. The "E! Daily News" host talks with George Clooney at 8 p.m., followed by Julia Roberts at 9 p.m. Both actors discuss their roles in the forthcoming film "Ocean's Eleven," the remake of the 1960 Rat Pack heist movie. ... Asner promises to get personal stories from her subjects and share early screen tests and other visual goodies with her audience. "Revealed" will air on Wednesdays at 10 p.m., beginning on Dec. 12."
3. Grego, Melissa (2001-12-10). "'Jules' Rules E! Ratings". Daily Variety. Vol. 274, no. 6. p. 8. ISSN 0011-5509. ProQuest 5720333.
  The article notes: "E! Entertainment Television's two-hour preem of bio skein “Revealed With Jules Asner” rated higher than any other series preem in the basic cabler's 11-year history. The two-parter featuring segs on “Ocean's Eleven” stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts, from 8–10 p.m. on Wednesday, averaged a .93 cable rating, or 707,000 households. The first part, on Clooney, earned an average .84 cable rating (640,000); viewership went up during the Roberts seg to a 1.01 cable rating (823,000 households)."
4. Gay, Jason (2003-04-14). "Aaron Brown's 'Weird' Science". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "now she hosts her own show, Revealed with Jules Asner , a perfectly pleasant interview show with all the hot young newsmakers from the world of entertainment. ... Ms. Asner was being a little tough on herself. She's managed to get a number of stars to open up about themselves, and she's learned to ask the tough questions, too. ... Ms. Asner said that when she first started doing Revealed , the people behind the show wanted her to ask stars how they lost their virginity. She said she wouldn't do it."
5. Rosenthal, Phil (2001-12-12). "Repairs ahead on 'Sesame St.'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Maybe that "Ocean's Eleven" overkill wasn't so dumb after all. It helped E! Entertainment Television's two-hour premiere of bio series "Revealed With Jules Asner" to the cable outlet's highest ratings for a series debut in its 11-year history. Asner's George Clooney interview attracted 640,000 homes, and her chat with Julia Roberts drew 823,000. It probably didn't hurt that Asner is dating "Ocean's" director Steven Soderbergh. "
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Revealed With Jules Asner to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging NemesisAT (talk · contribs), who contested the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources shared by Cunard demonstrate notability per WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School of Hard Knocks (TV series)

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

Unsourced stub on a TV show about a non-notable organization. Zero sourcing found. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Smith, Giles. "Will Greenwood takes soft approach to hard knock life". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-10-13. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "Would the world be a better place if a few more people played rugby? That’s the question boldly asked by School of Hard Knocks, the Sky Sports reality series, which cites in support of the proposition the “motivation, discipline and respect” that rugby union offers as standard, and is also bold enough to intimate that the answer might be yes. ... Now, though, in goes School of Hard Knocks, scouring deprived Haringey (as, in previous series, it scoured the East End of London and Croydon), luring the disaffected with the promise of competitive rugby (and a role in a television show; we shouldn’t leave that potential clincher out of the motivational package) and offering a glimpse of redemption in a session on the tackle pads with Scott Quinnell."
2. Kitson, Robert (2014-02-28). "School of Hard Knocks documentary puts Six Nations in perspective". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "It is the latest lesson from the School of Hard Knocks, the unique collision of rugby union, fly-on-the-wall television documentary and disadvantaged young adults which should be compulsory viewing in all middle-class households when its seventh series starts on Sky in September. ... With any luck, this year's shivering Birmingham intake – the weather has been grim since filming started – will also find it a springboard to a better place and, ideally, full-time work."
3. Godwin, Hugh (2010-03-21). "Ruck and Maul: Greenwood is punished by his own pupils at 'School of Hard Knocks'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "Ever fancied giving a rugby pundit a good pasting? Sky Sports' 'School of Hard Knocks' will do it for you, in episode four of the series to be aired next Tuesday night. Will Greenwood and Scott Quinnell are attempting to turn a bunch of East London ex-criminals and ne'er-do-wells into a rugby team, and the latest episode sees one player, known as Lucky, pile into Greenwood during a tackle session. A suitably gravelly voiceover comes from Steve "Phil Mitchell" McFadden of 'Eastenders' - surprising really, when Ross Kemp is the real-life rugby fan among the fictional brothers. Anyway, with two more episodes to come even the relentlessly positive Greenwood, whose dad Dick was one of England's greatest coaching innovators, is wondering if this motley crew are worth all the aggro."
4. Harris, Tom (2021-10-10). "School of Hard Knocks project in Cornwall from Sport Cornwall". The Falmouth Packet. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "SOHK is widely recognised as a television programme that was presented by former British Lions rugby players Will Greenwood and Scott Quinnell. Stories that evolved from the progreamme and the benefits to those participating were obvious, so much so that the SOHK is now very much recognised as an important national charity, delivering life-changing programmes across the UK for both children and adults."
5. Silk, Huw (2015-08-12). "How 24 troubled Welsh men turned their lives around – with the help of two rugby legends". WalesOnline. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "The 24 unemployed men from South Wales featured in a new Sky series premiering this weekend have been praised for the progress they made during the televised social inclusion scheme. The latest series of School of Hard Knocks begins this Saturday on Sky Sports and on Sunday on Sky 1, having been filmed earlier this year. It features the men from Cardiff, Bargoed, Tonypandy and Aberdare who are taken on an intensive training regime by Wales legend Scott Quinnell, English World Cup winner Will Greenwood and motivational psychologist Paul Boross. The series culminates with a jobs fair for the participants."
6. Farrell, Sean (2013-10-27). "Sky's School of Hard Knocks to size up Ireland for next series". The42.ie. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "SKY SPORTS’ COMMUNITY-based rugby project School of Hard Knocks could be coming to these shores in the coming months. ... The show’s sixth series (which ended last month) brought the Sky cameras to Glasgow, but producer Luke Rosier told TheScore.ie that Limerick and Belfast were also viable candidates at the last selection stage."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow School of Hard Knocks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging NemesisAT (talk · contribs), who contested the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cunard.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of reality legal programming

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

"Reality legal programming" does not seem to be an actual defined term. This list has been completely unsourced since 2010 and has not improved; in fact, until earlier today, "list of" was not part of the article's name due to an against-consensus move. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral(changed vote) I did too give a reason when I removed your prod. [17] I clearly said (valid list article). There was no "against-consensus move", that not making any sense at all. There was no discussion for it, nor needed one, it just a common sense thing. This is a list article, so "list of" should be in the name. Valid navigational list, it linking to Wikipedia articles logically grouped together. Reality television is well known, the article defines its purpose as listing those with "reality-based subjects having to do with law, such as police, crime, litigation". So clear inclusion criteria. Dream Focus 01:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it valid if "legal reality programming" is not a thing that exists? Lists still need to be sourced, and about a topic that actually exists. You could easily make a verifiable list of "list of TV shows whose titles begin with the letter W", "list of TV shows whose first episode aired on a Thursday", or "list of sitcoms that still use a laugh track in 2022", but that's not an encyclopedic topic. By whose standards is any given show about litigation or crime and a reality series? Both halves of that statement would need to be verified, and sources would need to prove that this is a noteworthy intersection of genres. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in the categories of category:Legal television series and category:Reality television. Both of these things exist, the page is dedicated to listing things in both of these categories. Can rename it to List of reality television programs involving the law.

Reality_television#Court_shows has a link to this page. Category:Reality television series by genre has Category:Court_shows in it. A page with just the many court shows in it would be a valid one. Just having similar themed things all in one list makes sense though. Whoops, I just noticed List of court shows already exist.

So does List of reality television programs. It seems everything is already listed elsewhere so perhaps this article is not needed. Dream Focus 17:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is on a made-up topic, which only exists because the creator of the article says it exists. Isn't that a criteria for speedy deletion? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH WP:OR stub list that would be a category if it was an actual topic anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurl!

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

Non-notable show. "tom crehan" "hurl" turned up literally no results on GNews, GBooks, or newspapers.com. Prod declined Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stanley, Alessandra (2008-07-17). "Gross Out and Knockoff, but Hardly Any Sendup". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "“Hurl!,” an extreme eating contest on the cable channel G4, has a certain elegance, an economy of action and intent that is too often lacking in contemporary ballet or fine dining. Contestants, almost all male, eat as much as they can in one sitting, then exert themselves in a strenuous physical activity. He who eats the most and vomits the least wins $1,000."
2. Farhi, Paul (2008-07-16). "'Hurl!': Gag Reflux; G4's Game Show Earns Two Fingers Down the Throat". The Washington Post. ProQuest 410202661.
  The article notes:
  It's "Hurl!," a new TV game show that oozes under the lowest bar ever set by reality television. It also emerges as the inglorious new standard-setter in the how-low-can-they-go derby. Oh, yes, this is award-worthy retch-edness.
  "Hurl!," which debuted last night on the G4 cable channel, is the first half-hour series that combines physical rigor with eating disorders and gastric distress. Contestants consume massive quantities of sure-to-bloat foods -- chicken pot pie, franks 'n' beans, New England clam chowder -- then engage in such activities as riding an amusement park Tilt-A-Whirl. The "winner" is the contestant who doesn't lose his lunch. Or to be technical about it, who holds out the longest before he releases the hounds. Call it a pas de spew.
  "Hurl!," in other words, is for people who found "Fear Factor" much too nuanced and intellectually complex.
3. Roberds, Michael (2008-07-18). "G4 'wins' with disgusting game show called Hurl!". Surrey Now-Leader. p. 36. ProQuest 359014283.
  The article notes: "If they made a movie in 1988 that was a satire on life in 2008, they would have television shows that would've looked outrageous by their standards. They might even have a game show, in which the object was to be the last to vomit. Well, I have seen the future and it is Hurl! G4, a cable channel devoted mostly to video game news, has come up with this bizarre concoction. In Hurl!, contestants are involved in eating contests (hot dogs, fish sticks, etc.) with those who can keep the most down continuing on to the next level. In this part, they are subjected to different activities (belly flops, mechanical bulls) designed to shake things up. ... Congratulations, G4, you've come up with the most disgusting show of the year. I hope."
4. "News of the Weird for August 24, 2008". Andrews McMeel Syndication. 2008-08-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Though it has been on national cable TV since mid-July, ratings have not been spectacular for the G4 channel's show, "Hurl!" leaving many Americans unaware of precisely how far standards of taste have fallen. "Hurl!" contestants are forced to gorge themselves, then are purposely, rapidly, twirted and shaken on carnival-type rides, with the last player to retain his stomach contents declared the winner. Wrote a Washington Post reviewer, it's "for people who found 'Fear Factor' much too nuanced.""
5. Darling, Cary (2008-07-13). "Japanese Game Shows Exploding Across the Airwaves in U.S." The Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "This show certainly taps into the extreme spirit of Japanese TV. Because the only thing harder than taking part in this eating contest is watching it. Not only do competitors have to choke down mountains of mac 'n' cheese and pumpkin pie in record time, they are forced to compete in some belly-churning physical activity until one or more of them, you know, hurls. The last one standing, however woozily, who hasn't given up his lunch gets $1,000 and the Iron Stomach Award. "Hurl!" is helped by its cheeky sense of humor: ..."
6. Weiss, Joanna (2008-07-14). "'Hurl' serves up gross-out reality". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: ""Hurl!" doesn't take itself the least bit seriously and doesn't suggest that anyone ought to watch unless absolutely willing. It's less hazardous than "Jackass" and not much more disgusting than "Fear Factor," and if it finds a doofus audience, so be it."
7. Glazer, Teressa Hamrick (2008-05-29). "Glazer: The TV show you dont want to watch at dinner". The Gainesville Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Just when I think modern day culture has finally bottomed out and can sink no further, along comes the likes of Neal Tiles who digs a hole so the bar can be lowered even more. It makes me want to hurl."
8. Gillette, Amelie (2008-06-20). "This Week In Terrifying Hybrids". The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Jackass + Competitive Eating - Bam Margera + G4's beautiful vision of a vomit spirograph = g4's Hurl!"
9. Bell, Josh (2008-07-24). "Falling Down. A new crop of game shows take on-air debasement to a new low". Las Vegas Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "As dumb as Wipeout is, it’s genius compared to Hurl! (G4, Sundays, 7 p.m.), a crude, low-budget game show that forces participants to gorge themselves on some sort of rich food and then engage in some potentially vomit-inducing activity, like being rolled around in a giant metal ball."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hurl! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the many sources listed above. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am impressed with the sources found and consider them to constitute significant coverage, and so the article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Eats

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

Pilot that only aired one episode once. Deprodded with addition of sources, but there still isn't enough content here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This anonymous editor appears to have voted "keep per..." in seven AfDs in the space of 10 minutes. NemesisAT (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Myers, Dan. "Justin Warner on 'Rebel Eats' and What Took So Long to Get His Show on the Air". The Daily Meal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "The end result, a one-time special called Rebel Eats, will be broadcast Saturday, March 30, at 10 p.m., with the potential for it to be turned into a series if it performs well. ... While traveling the South’s back roads in a beat-up car with little cash in his pocket, Warner meets folks who are similar to him: in a word, rebels."
2. Sagner, Stan (2013-03-24). "Justin Warner, winner of 'Food Network Star,' goes in search of the unusual in his show 'Rebel Eats'". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "The culinary enfant terrible of Bed-Stuy, who brought a fresh, irreverent and season-winning perspective to cooking on last season's "Food Network Star," is at it again, this time with the premiere of his show "Rebel Eats." ... Restless for new ideas and armed with a whopping $300 budget courtesy of Food Network, the Alton Brown protégé sets his sights on America's Deep South in a one-hour TV special meant to get (and give) some fresh inspiration from what he regards as his "sick and twisted" culinary soulmates. Over the course of a grueling 12-day odyssey, Warner encounters eccentricity galore, at one point sampling bacon-infused beer and visiting Memphis' legendary Dyer's Burgers, a restaurant that's been recycling and cooking with the same batch of mythical grease for over a century. Delicious."
3. Schelle, Crystal (2013-03-21). "'Rebel' hits the road: Justin Warner's new show premieres Saturday, March 30". The Herald-Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Justin Warner might be "The Next Food Network Star," but he wants his viewers to know he hasn't forgotten his Hagerstown roots. Even the title of his new show, "Rebel Eats," which premieres Saturday, March 30, is a wink to the mascot of his alma mater, South Hagerstown High School. ... Armed with $300 and driving his jalopy, he'll be out meeting everyday people and chatting about what they do."
4. Robbins, Caryn (2013-02-18). "Food Network Star Winner Winner Justin Warner to Host REBEL EATS, 3/30". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Food Network Star season eight winner Justin Warner hits the road in search of unique culinary rule-breakers in the one-hour special REBEL EATS, airing Saturday, March 30th at 10pm ET/PT on Food Network. Armed with $300 in his pocket, a beat up car and a passion for unconventional food and eccentric people, Justin travels the back roads of the South to try everything from moonshine and bacon beer to BBQ in a jar and jelly fish pasta. Along the way, Justin meets the cooks and proprietors who, like him, march to their own beat through the world of food."
5. Trenda, Hilary (2013-04-03). "'Rebel Eats' on Food Network pays a visit to 10 Park Lanes". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Charlotte's 10 Park Lanes was featured on the March 30 Food Network special "Rebel Eats," hosted by Season Eight Food Network Star winner Justin Warner. Warner tried the Montford establishment's Mason jar signature stacks, which layer complementary ingredients such as barbecue, beans and mac and cheese in the canning jars. Warner also stuck around to bowl with the Charlotte Roller Girls."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rebel Eats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging NemesisAT (talk · contribs), who contested the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources shared by Cunard demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources found don't seem notable, but together, I think they just push it past the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Outrageous Behavior

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Found no sourcing whatsoever. Article doesn't even say what show the network was on or who hosted it. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable TV show. AKK700 02:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Cassandra Fernando

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linda White (politician)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing has been identified and the n/cs were three years ago so not particularly relevant to this discussion, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Merit

AfDs for this article:

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

Films appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. This article has had two other chances, and both were closed as "no consensus" due to a complete lack of participation. It's clear that there is no interest in improvement, nor any resources to improve it with, so just put it out of its misery already and stop dragging this out any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG without going to the regional coverage in Hindi and other Indian regional languages .Covered in The Hindu ,Scroll.in,Hindustan Times,Business Standard , ThePrint ,The Wire (India) ,The Globe and Mail amongst others.The Wire (India), calls it The Death of Merit, remains one of the most crucial documentations of forms of discrimination faced by Bahujan students in university spaces. The documentary is about real life suicides and is discussed in this context.

^[1]

References

^

Keep the sources found above by Pharaoh of the Wizards are enough for WP:GNG as they discuss the documentary and its subject in depth. Hemantha (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. There is plenty of discussion around the work in reliable sources in an independent way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Lead030403-1] Conlin, Shaun (April 3, 2003). "Shows dedicated to gamer's lifestyle". The Leader-Post. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. p. A9. Retrieved May 1, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[2] ttps://twitter.com/MB_ELibrary/status/1493184006568828928

[3] "کراچی میں سٹریٹ کرائم آج بھی بڑا چیلنج". BBC News اردو (in Urdu). 24 January 2017.

[4] "'پینل یا مینل! ہم تنگ آگئے ہیں'". BBC News اردو (in Urdu). 21 November 2019.

[5] "صنف نازک نہ کہو، یہ ترقی کی کنجی ہے". jang.com.pk. 8 March 2018.

[6] "Sepsis deaths around world 'twice as high as previously thought'". the Guardian. The Guardian. 16 January 2020.

[7] "Sepsis Symptoms To Look Out For, As Study Reveals It Causes One In Five Deaths Globally". HuffPost UK. HuffPost. 17 January 2020.

[8] "U.S. Life Expectancy Trails Other Wealthy Nations". WebMD. WebMD.

[9] CNN, Susan Scutti. "Violent deaths increased 143% in 2016". CNN. CNN. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

[10] "Watch out: 1 in 5 deaths globally from sepsis". BBC News 中文 (in Simplified Chinese). BBC News.

[11] "Los 6 países donde se producen la mitad de las muertes por arma de fuego en el mundo (y 5 son latinoamericanos)". BBC News Mundo (in Spanish).

[12] Steel, Nicholas; Ford, John A.; Newton, John N.; Davis, Adrian C. J.; Vos, Theo; Naghavi, Mohsen; Glenn, Scott; Hughes, Andrew; Dalton, Alice M.; Stockton, Diane; Humphreys, Ciaran; Dallat, Mary; Schmidt, Jürgen; Flowers, Julian; Fox, Sebastian; Abubakar, Ibrahim; Aldridge, Robert W.; Baker, Allan; Brayne, Carol; Brugha, Traolach; Capewell, Simon; Car, Josip; Cooper, Cyrus; Ezzati, Majid; Fitzpatrick, Justine; Greaves, Felix; Hay, Roderick; Hay, Simon; Kee, Frank; Larson, Heidi J.; Lyons, Ronan A.; Majeed, Azeem; McKee, Martin; Rawaf, Salman; Rutter, Harry; Saxena, Sonia; Sheikh, Aziz; Smeeth, Liam; Viner, Russell M.; Vollset, Stein Emil; Williams, Hywel C.; Wolfe, Charles; Woolf, Anthony; Murray, Christopher J. L. (3 November 2018). "Changes in health in the countries of the UK and 150 English Local Authority areas 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016". The Lancet. pp. 1647–1661. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32207-4.

[13] "Variation in the COVID-19 infection–fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: a systematic analysis". The Lancet. 16 April 2022. pp. 1469–1488. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02867-1.

[14] 
This tragic documentary series tells the stories of Dalit students who were driven to suicide Scroll.in

Suicide by Dalit students in 4 years The Hindu

BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India

If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times

If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard

The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost

Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India

If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Zee News

Rohith Vemula's Suicide Triggered a New Political Wave The Wire (India)

Further reading on Dalits and India's caste system The Globe and Mail

The Death of Merit Countercurrents.org

2,400 students dropped out of IITs in 2 years, nearly half were SC, ST, OBC ThePrint

[15] This tragic documentary series tells the stories of Dalit students who were driven to suicide Scroll.in

[16] Suicide by Dalit students in 4 years The Hindu

[17] BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India

[18] If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times

[19] If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard

[20] The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost

[21] Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India

[22] If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Zee News

[23] Rohith Vemula's Suicide Triggered a New Political Wave The Wire (India)

[24] Further reading on Dalits and India's caste system The Globe and Mail

[25] The Death of Merit Countercurrents.org

[26] 2,400 students dropped out of IITs in 2 years, nearly half were SC, ST, OBC ThePrint

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raunaq Ahuja}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Sayer Daudzai}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameClub (2nd nomination)}}