Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Chris Leach}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easily confused Buddhist representations}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easily confused Buddhist representations}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Waffles}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Waffles}}

Revision as of 15:49, 12 May 2022

< May 11 May 13 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Chris Leach

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

This article has multiple issues regarding NPOV and Notability. A major contributor to the article seems to be closely connected to the subject. DevSpenpai::talk 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that David Eppstein removed a notability tag in July 2020 with an edit summary stating "rm notability tag; obvious pass of WP:PROF#C5". Espresso Addict (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An endowed chair at a major university is a pass of WP:PROF#C5, even in a business school that finds endowments for many of its full professors. With four publications in triple-digit citation counts on Google Scholar, he also has a case for #C1. I trimmed some promotional wording surrounding his textbook coauthorship; I don't think it is good enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF#C4 because he was only added as a coauthor in the 7th edition, after the book had already become well-established. The material about the De Soto Initiative is also a little promotional in its wording but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while virtually unsourced currently (the single source is now dead, but was active back in 2020), David Eppstein is spot on regarding meeting WP:NPROF, which is why it passed NPP back in 2020. Onel5969 TT me 20:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is clearly not a consensus to delete this content – if anything, the closest thing to a consensus is "don't delete". However, there is also no consensus here on what is the right alternative: to keep the content as its own page – presumably under a different title, since the one thing most seem to agree on is that the page is poorly named – or to merge the content into some other relevant page(s). Those alternatives can be hashed out elsewhere and at this point deletion seems the least desired result, so I am closing this AfD. RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easily confused Buddhist representations

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

The article title and the article is WP:SYNTHESIS about various Buddhist deities, which are "easily confused". The "Easily confused Buddhist representations" has no academic basis and is an WP:OR term. We already have articles Buddhahood, Buddharupa and Boddhisattva, where the referenced information can be suitably merged. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Maybe you guys can tell the lady at our neighborhood temple who that is in her statue. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, sorry, I was trying to say that even members of a sangha can be confused. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm not sure why that's an argument for deletion though. It's silly in a title (or not the wiki way) but there's no doubt that non-Buddhists and no doubt many Buddhists can be "easily confused" as to the identity of eg the main and other images in shrines, & an attempt to redress this has a place somewhere on wp. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Buddharupa includes the iconography of the Buddha. I have merged the Dhyani Buddha part in the Five Tathāgatas, but a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable. Also, leaving a "crap" title redirect to any other article seems to be not a good option.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting a merge leaving a redirect, though that could anyway be dealt with separately if you dislike it that much. Buddharupa badly needs a rename - I had no idea that was what it was about, and had never looked at it. No wonder it gets under 60 views a day, and has not been developed much. It's pretty inadequate. I don't really see why "a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable" actually. At the very least, the references here are much better than those at Buddharupa (very poor) even if little use is made of most of them. We have so ridiculously little on Buddhist art, it seems perverse to set about deleting stuff. In fact, Buddharupa claims at the start to cover images of all Buddhas, but in fact only covers Gautama, so this stuff would (all) be useful additions there. Btw, the Visual arts sort list is the correct one for this, not "Arts". Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick with Buddharupa, and rename it, for now. The point of the article under discussion is that is is principally about images of other buddhas, not Gautama. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also redirected Buddha in art there, for now. I'm happy to merge this (Easily Confused..) into Buddharupa. I think at some point we need to decide whether a single "Buddhas in art" (all of them) or two articles: "Gautama/The Buddha in art" plus one on other Buddhas in art. If the articles were better they might need splitting on grounds of length. An alternative is to move this to a title to be decided - maybe Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art - and clarify that the scope of Buddharupa is just images of Gautama (and renaming it). In that case I could start an expansion of this one, which lacks many of the most basic points. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2] Buddharupa should cover only Gautama Buddha. Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand (which started as Iconography of the Buddha) has common elements of the Buddha iconography. Would suggest merging into Buddharupa and having an article Iconography of Gautama Buddha or likewise. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy to keep Buddharupa to cover only Gautama Buddha, which really only involves changing the first senence. But probably this should be proposed at the talk there. In that case I would suggest keeping this, renaming and re-writing it. Some would survive. I'm not so sure about merging Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand, which works well as a more local article. Again, that would need a discussion there. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge or at the very least rename, The argument for deletion are mainly aginsy poor title, which may be renamed; else content can be merged in relevant pages. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge, this article has plenty of sources to make it notable. If it can't get kept then the information could be added to other pages. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started Talk:Buddharupa#Clarifying_the_scope per the above - to clarify that that article just covers Gautama, as it actually does, but not as the lead says. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge or at the very least rename per Johnbod. Huggums537 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly consensus that something might be done with this material, but there is not yet consensus on exactly what - whether rename or merge, and if so, to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 09:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per G5. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Waffles

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

non-notable artist, sourced to typical churnalism, gossip and press releases. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hernandez (artist)

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but they're just passing mentions in articles about graffiti artists. The other sources are social media, blogs, and superficial mentions here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: While most references aren't terribly in-depth, all the mentions and articles appear to make him notable enough according to WP:ARTIST. Merko (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:52, 4 June 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 Major League Soccer on television. ✗plicit 12:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Soccer Saturday

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

Zero sourcing found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Major League Soccer on television - maybe there are sources out there discussing the show, maybe they all discuss MLS and briefly talk about this. Redirect is fine, and if real sourcing is found, can revisit. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Major League Soccer on television as doesn't show independent notability to pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a TV directory, so doesn't need an article on every TV show. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 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.
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. North America1000 16:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Turkmenistan

List of people on the postage stamps of Turkmenistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is terrible. I have already nominated a number of these "lists of people on postage stamps" articles, including one that had been completely empty since 2008. I thought that was the worst, but I'm afraid that I was mistaken.

Since its inception as an unsourced list in 2010, this page has "listed" one person, who appeared on a stamp in 1991. Too bad that the first stamp in Turkmenistan only appeared in ... 1992 (and the first person to appear on a Turkmen stamp was not the founder of Pakistan, duh).

Even if this had been a factually correct list, it would fail WP:LISTN as a topic which hasn't received significant attention as a group. As it stands, it is simply a monument to the utter ridiculousness of most of these lists and belies all "but readers want it" claims. Luckily only 24 people (or webscrapers or so) have seen this page in the last 90 days[3]. Fram (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Turkmenistan. Fram (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one person does not a list make. We really need to cut back of the philatelycruft in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete possibly speedy, only one item that doesn't even appear to be correct Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is correct actually, Turkmenisan issued a stamp for Jinnah in December 2001, as a couple countries did for his 125th birthday. I don't have any problem with losing the one-element list, it looks like an enthusiast was hoping for stone soup. Stan (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Now I'm curious: which of these lists was completely empty? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Portuguese colonies! Fram (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Don't see any use for this title. Alex-h (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't see any sources, don't know if we'd need the article even then. Jacona (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless non-list. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Michael Ekanem

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

WP:NBIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Michael Ekanem Ploni (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to President of Russia or an appropriate section thereof as decided on editorially. Star Mississippi 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the discussion here, where a head of state is ex officio the commander in chief, it should not be a separate article but rather listed as one of the powers of the head of state. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The content on this page can easily be merged into President of Russia without issue, though if necessary, can be marked as a specific section discussing the office's powers as commander-in-chief. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 South Korean KT-1 Aircraft Base crash

2022 South Korean KT-1 Aircraft Base crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable military aviation accident. Military crashes are much more common than commercial aviation and even more so for training exercises. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Page Is Very Short And Not Very Notable Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soybean (disambiguation)

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

Zero entries beside the primary topic that are plausibly called "soybean". All others are unlikely WP:PARTIAL title matches. I seriously doubt anyone calls various diseases of the soybean plant "soybean" (e.g. "my soybean is infected with soybean"). The only other entry is the soybean car, and the article never uses the shorthand "soybean" for it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:TITLEPTM and the arguments put forth by nomination, this falls likely into a nobody calls New York, York scenario with all of these matches. We don't link to Corn syrup from Corn (disambiguation) because despite being made from corn, no one calls it just "corn". The same applies to the soybean car, which as put for by the nominator is the only one that could feasibly be called "soybean". TartarTorte 13:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also favoring an early close, as I don't believe this will be particularly controversial of a move. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 01:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this is called a disambiguation page, it's really a list. (I don't think we need that list, either.) Jacona (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Tactful Saboteur. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Sabotage

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

Entirely plot summary and fails WP:GNG, was deprodded by a user who thinks it can be merged to The Tactful Saboteur. The deprodder added two merge tags, one to a nonexistent page, but did not open a merger discussion. I disagree, as there are no references. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Politics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per my PROD, this is an unreferenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:GNG, WP:V, etc. I am suprised that User:DGG makes us spend (not to say waste...) our time through discussion here, and a merge suggestion (which they didn't even elaborate on per talk). Those are not best practices. Merge what? There are not footnotes. Merge ORish fancruft? Strong no. If you want to rescue anything here, please start by finding sources and improving this. PS. Hint: rather than waste time here, I suggest that anyone interested in works of Herbert tries to improve The Tactful Saboteur, which doesn't look very good right now. Neither does Whipping Star. See The_Dosadi_Experiment#Reception for bare minimum needed to prevent those works from ending up here next. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nothing to merge, just synthesis, fancruft, and unsourced content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without prior deletion per WP:ATD-R, to allow sourcing and merging from this content without future admin intervention. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens Redirect where? I do support SOFTDELETE and redirecting, but we need a target. The Tactful Saboteur? Ok, but that article risks being deleted itself unless someone improves it... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searching for sources, both under its full name as well as the shortened "BuSab" name, turns up mentions in plot summaries and reviews of the novels and stories the group appeared in, but nothing in-depth on the agency in specific that would warrant a split. The only sources listed in the article are the stories and novels themselves, each of which already has its own article with a plot summary describing the group's role in them. A redirect to The Tactful Saboteur, the agency's first appearance, would probably make sense, but a merge is not really needed as that article already describes the plot information regarding the agency already, and there is no sourced non-plot information to move over. Rorshacma (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to The Tactful Saboteur. I deprodded it because there seemed to be an alternative to deletion. I probably should have explained on the talk p, but I thought it obvious, and I see some others here agree with me, tho they are for some reason !voting delete instead of redirect or merge. while ayign ti can beredirected or merged. I did not carry out the merge myself because I do not know the works involved, and I would consider it foolhardy to try to rewrite content about a work I did not know. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or second choice redirect without deletion) Passes WP:GSN, as the Beureau receives coverage in abundant independent WP:RS, such as the near 50 year old book "Dune and other works" and in sources published this last few years like "Living in Technical Legality" by good Kieran Tranter. As most of the coverage in the truly independent sources admitedly lack depth, as I see two former Arb favour redirection, I'll add that The Dosadi Experiment is probabaly the best target. Herbert has some interesting observations on the Law in that book, which could easilly apply to deletion policy and how it can be twisted for the uneccessary destruction of valuable knowledge. "The Law is a blind guide, a pot of bitter water. The Law is a deadly contest which can change as waves change." Though I'm sure he'd make an excpetion for sensible parts such as WP:Before. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeydHuxtable: Please provide specific sources that support notability, WP:SOURCESEXIST is not enough. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or selective merge to The Tactful Saboteur. The latter has issues, but there appear to be better sourcing options to fix it than there are for Bureau. Star Mississippi 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Tactful Saboteur as WP:ATD and as a plausible plot element/search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinan Yahdian Javier

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE only turned up trivial mentions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below. It would have been nice to have been pinged, so I extend that courtesy to @Angelo.romano:. GiantSnowman 06:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources provided below. --Angelo (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG, BEFORE clearly not done properly. Some sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and a whole bunch here 7. Player already has more than a handful pro appearances, honestly ridiculous nomination.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bola and Goal.com are more than just passing mentions so SPORTCRIT and GNG are met. It might be best to move to 'Dinan Javier' per WP:COMMONNAME if kept. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability has been established by reasoning of Keep voters clearly.ZanciD (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War in popular culture

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

Arguably, a very interesting topic. Possibly notable (ex. the existence of works like [4]), but not in this WP:TNTable form of a completely unreferenced TVtropic listcruft aka List of all media that mention the topic of war (the lead even admits the goal: "The following is a list of pop culture references to war."). Like all similar articles (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture), it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. That's what TV Tropes is for, folks. Or https://military-history.fandom.com PS. The "quality" of this page is further confirmed by the template at the bottom that states "Wikiquote has quotations related to Ernest Hemingway." :> PPS. We also have a fork of this at List of wars in fiction which likely needs a discussion here as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Thakur

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

This article is not enough notable to stand alone article the references do not show the significant coverage of the person. AlexandruAAlu (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per the sources identified during the discussion. Star Mississippi 02:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1833)

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1833) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, a passing mention in a book and an entry in an apparently unpublished database (Hambrecht 2015)? Fram (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: thanks. Do you know if any similar sources exist for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1805)? Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can find is an obituary in the Georgia Telegraph on Newspapers.com but I don't have access to read the full details Piecesofuk (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:29, 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.
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 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Child Sex Abuse People's Tribunal

United Kingdom Child Sex Abuse People's Tribunal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As mentioned in the tags on the article, this seems to have been created by people close to the subject, and is based on routine coverage. The only third-party reference given (The Guardian) does not mention the tribunal, and is probably a case of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

The only convincing thing I could find (other than passing references in routine news coverage) was an academic study here, but even this seems to a possible WP:COI, as it is written by an Alan Collins, who may be the legal adviser to the tribunal mentioned here (then again, it may be a different person by the same name). QueenofBithynia (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1805)

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1805) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability in sources in article, one sentence in the description of papers, and a passing mention in a bio of his father. No better sources found online. Article gives little reason to believe that much more would be available. Fram (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I get the exact same sources used in the article in GScholar, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for Soft Deletion which is how I was going to close this one, so relisting it instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Plague of Icy Breath. Cholera and the Gateshead Community 1831–1832 says: "Two men,W. H. Burkett and J. Charlton, are said to have raised the possibility of opening a Gateshead Dispensary" and cites "Fallow, H. F., Gateshead Dispensary Centennial Souvenir 1832–1932. A Brief Retrospect (Gateshead 1932)" Sadly, I don't have access to that book to see if it has significant coverage. CT55555 (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sourcing found in this long discussion. And why was the title disambiguated when Thomas Jackson Charlton is itself a redlink? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've so far found no significant coverage of this person, but he is mentioned in passing in several biographies of his brother Robert M. Charlton (e.g. [5],[6], [7]) with whom he produced a book of poems (posthumously). But he also has basic biographic mentions in biographies of his father and son, so there is no clear target for redirect. Leaning towards delete, with no prejudice towards recreation if his role in the 1834 cholera epidemic can be fleshed out somewhat beyond a mere sentence. N.B. Thomas Jackson Charlton (Jr.) is also the full name of Thomas Charlton (rower). --Animalparty! (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per the discussion herein, I added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template atop the article. North America1000 07:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiki (album)

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

Most sources on page are primaries (Only four aren't, but one of those is another WP article so that's no good either). I think there may be enough reliable non-primary sources available to still make something worthwhile out of this, including at least one or two that aren't already present which I saw on Google, but I'd like to see the article draftified first to be certain. As is, this article is definitely not up to snuff. QuietHere (talk) 07:40, 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! 05:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, album seems to have charted but I couldn't find any reputable reviews (just questionable blogs) and the current sourcing is atrocious. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Only the last 2 sources in the article are reliable since it talks about the EP. The rest are primary sources. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were the sources I saw in my search that led me to suggest draftifying rather than outright deleting. A lot of the article may need to be torn down in removing all the primaries which will be quite the process, but I will second that it passes notability given the links you've provided. And perhaps the article doesn't actually need to be draftified in order to do all that work, but either way a big change is needed. QuietHere (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. I agree with the nom that it needs to be trimmed down. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 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 redirect to Taiwan frigate scandal. Content remains available under the redirect for those wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Wang

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

This article contains harmful inaccuracies which are not adequately supported by the citations provided, which is impermissible in an article which falls under BLP rules. It should be deleted to avoid misinformation, but also because Bruno Wang, the article subject, is low profile and does not meet significant coverage standards according to WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited because of his father's (and not his) alleged involvement in a Taiwanese frigate scandal, which was also a single event. The article subject was in fact a student in the United States of America when these events took place.

The claims in the article that "Bruno and his father Andrew are key figures in the Taiwan frigate scandal with Bruno allegedly connected to the murder of Capt. Yin Ching-feng." is untrue about the article subject and not adequately sourced for a BLP. The source (irishtimes.com) alleges that Andrew Wang was connected to the alleged murder (which is untrue) but does not suggest that the article subject was. Similarly, the lead that the article subject is a "fugitive best known for his involvement in the Taiwan frigate scandal" is incorrect and unsourced. Only the article subject’s father was suspected to have been involved and the article subject has in fact been found by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in 2019 to be an "innocent third party."

The remainder of the page is commentary on the article subject's philanthropic activities, and the citations linked to these points indicate a low level of media coverage/interest.

In the interest of transparency, I have a connection to the article subject. info-en-q@wikimedia.org advised submitting a deletion request after they were emailed. Tidesino (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, coverage is overwhelming and the subject does a lot of self promotion so they are most definitely a public figure (low profile people generally don't have their own promotional websites[13]). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is still relatively unknown [prior rationale snipped], and he hasnt been convicted so I think a BLPREQUESTDELETE should be accepted. Jumpytoo Talk 06:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jumpytoo: there is no grounds to honor a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE where a subject meets WP:GNG as this one does. Also note that this is not a BLPREQUESTDELETE case as it is not being requested by the subject of the article, it only applies "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion," which hasn't happened here. Please also note that using the Daily Mail in that manner is a WP:BLP violation, please remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if GNG is met, I believe BLPREQUESTDELETE can still be applied, the WP notability stems from the WP:BLPCRIME content and as they are still only accusations I believe much more leeway can be given here (I could not find significant coverage about him that is mainly focused on his philanthropy, if such sources do exist on the other ventures alone that can meet NBIO then I can reconsider). Regarding if it is the article subject who requested this, I assumed it is someone authorized to speak on his behalf based off the COI disclosure, but I could be wrong here. @Tidesino:, would you like to elaborate on your connection to the subject, and what prompted you to request deletion? Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Jumptytoo:, I can confirm that I am Mr Wang's advisor (hence my COI disclosure) and I am authorised to make this request on his behalf. I was prompted to do so after emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org for advice - the editor who picked up the email advised that submitting a deletion request was the most appropriate course of action. Tidesino (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of our coverage is about the crime per say, the related coverage we have seems to be about what happened to the proceeds of crime which is a little different (clearly not WP:1E). The coverage of his involvement in the prince's cash for honor scandal for example. Also note that page had 987 visitors in the last month, not what one would expect for a low profile figure or someone known only for a crime committed 20+ years ago (and again, he has a promotional website so he does not qualify as a low profile figure... Its hard to conceive of a way in which having your own purely promotional website does not qualify as "actively seek out media attention"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many low-profile people have their own websites to express themselves professionally (I have one myself), so I wouldn't put too much on that. I also believe implying usage of dirty money still fits in WP:BLPCRIME. Maybe an article on Andrew Wang is possible if the WP:1E issue regarding him could be surmounted, in which case an redirection is possible as ATD. But because BLP applies to Bruno I just think its better to be safe than sorry. Jumpytoo Talk 05:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is circular and without a logical basis. You could just as easily conclude that you are a public figure, particularly if that website is actually published under your own name (remember that we hold bloggers and citizen journalists to be public figures). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 5 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, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is difficult to reconcile the "low profile" claim with him creating a company called Bruno Wang Productions, being a spokesperson for the organization, hiring a PR agency (close up media) to promote statements from Bruno Wang about Bruno Wang Productions.[1] Those actions seems like someone seeking publicity. Then I see that he is in the news, not because of his father's actions, but because he gave 500,000 to Prince Charles. I think he is notable. I think if there are inaccuracies you should draw attention to them and show sources that refute them on the talk page of the article. CT55555 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bruno Wang Productions: 'People, Places and Things' Secures Nominations for 4 Olivier Awards." Wireless News, 12 Apr. 2016. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A449179767/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=f7d52821. Accessed 5 May 2022.
On the topic of whether Mr Wang is low-profile/self-promoting, he has business interests and it is necessary to provide updates about those businesses in the way that many non-notable business people and companies do. Regarding the news you mention, Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue. Moreover, the donation amount referred to is inaccurate as the £500,000 is attributed to a different donor in the original source. It should also be noted that these articles quote from the Daily Mail as their source, which, as previously mentioned, is typically considered inappropriate for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue" doesn't appear to be true, he is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself, see The Telegraph's feature piece entitled "Prince Charles's charity mired in further controversy over donor linked to Taiwanese arms deal."[14]. This PR release [15] is about his philanthropy, not his business or company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my analysis, and please tell me if I've erred:
  1. He named him company after himself by choice
  2. He chose to be the spokes person
  3. He was not forced to stand in front of a photographer
  4. He could have made the donations quietly, without publicity, but chose not to
So my two questions are:
A - Are any of those 4 points incorrect
B - Are they hallmarks of low or high profile people? CT55555 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Using your name as a company enables the company's work to be associated with you, but is not the same as seeking publicity.
  2. Being a company spokesperson is also not the same as seeking publicity. It provides the name of someone to whom questions can be directed.
  3. Being photographed is not the same as seeking publicity. This is especially true when the subject never publicised this photo.
  4. The official plaque recording the gift thanks Pureland Foundation, not the article subject. Neither the article subject or Pureland Foundation sought any publicity for the donation.
I trust these answers also address your further questions at A and B.Tidesino (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Thank you for your comments. I don't think his actions are consistent with those of a low profile individual. After considering carefully and giving you the chance to persuade me otherwise, I !vote keep CT55555 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC) (scored out my own comment CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Tidesino: This press release isn't even about philanthropy, "Bruno Wang, an avid film buff and a fan of comic book legends, hereby invites the public to watch the movie The Avengers that is set to be released on May 4, 2012. Anyone who does so is also invited to log onto Bruno Wang's Facebook profile at https://www.facebook.com/brunowangtaiwan to share their own reviews of the film so that their thoughts can be shared with the entire Facebook community and so that people can be aware of the general reaction of what some feel will be a blockbuster."[16] including a whole promotional "About Bruno Wang" section. There are a whole bunch of these... "Bruno Wang Recaps a Memorable Weekend at the British Open, Featuring an Unforgettable Finish"[17], "Film and Anime Fan Bruno Wang to Attend London Film & Comic Con in July of 2012 at Olympia Grand Hall"[18], "Bruno Wang to Attend Comic World 34 in Hong Kong With Mrs. Wang to Enjoy Anime Exhibits and Presentations"[19], . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tidesino: you replied above but you missed this one, would you not agree that these press releases are promoting Mr Wang personally and not his business interests? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye’s Back: This material is not about the article subject, but rather about another person (or persons) with the same name.
It is also incorrect to say Mr Wang “is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself” - it should be noted that there is no actual wording within the Telegraph article (or any others) that supports any such claims made against him. Tidesino (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that possible? Surely they can't all be for a different "Bruno Wang" unless the other Bruno Wang also has a charity named "Pure Land Foundation" [20]. This is clearly the article subject and his charity seeking publicity for a donation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source [8] does refer to the article subject, I was referring to [4],[5],[6] and [7] which have no connection to the article subject Tidesino (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that [8] (at least) does refer to the article subject do you now wish to re-evaluate your statement about Mr Wang not seeking publicity? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the website "Bruno Wang News"[21] run by the subject of the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as single Google News search gives as:
  1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plastic-surgeon-funded-prince-s-therapy-centre-5xk36kgph
  2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9205395/Christine-Chiu-millions-boob-jobs-Prince-Charless-new-Wellbeing-Centre.html
  3. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bling-empires-christine-chiu-on-the-pressures-of-marrying-into-a-chinese-dynasty-zfp6hp9g8
  4. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/internasional/20220216204208-134-760179/polisi-selidiki-yayasan-pangeran-charles-terkait-sogokan-wn-saudi
  5. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/memorial-service-stephen-hawking-6w0zp3kx0

If I'm missing something, please correct me.--- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail cannot be used. This simply mentions his name in a list of attendees. This is simply a photo caption as is this. THis is why a search is not necessarily helpful in determining notability @NeverTry4Me. No judgement on CNNI piece as I cannot read it, but it doesn't appear to be substantive. Star Mississippi 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: kind of a moot point given that the coverage already included in the article gets us well over the GNG bar. We don't need additional sources to establish notability, we have more than enough already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not taking a position on the article @Horse Eye's Back, just responding to @NeverTry4Me's query of If I'm missing something, please correct me. because "here's a bunch of hits" isn't helpful in an AfD if they don't in fact prove notability. Star Mississippi 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:I agree that it isn't helpful, in answering their question of "if I'm missing something" I'd note that there is a considerable amount of feature coverage of the subject outside of English (primarily in traditional Mandarin, as would be expected of the coverage of a notable figure from Taiwan) but I am not fluent and I don't trust google translate for BLP so perhaps the help of someone fluent would be helpful. Coverage in languages other than english *does* contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. I only disregarded the CNNI one as I cannot read it, not because it's not usable. The English sourcing that NT4M presented doesn't add up to anything other than confirming Wang's identity, which does not appear to be at issue. Star Mississippi 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the opening gambit of the article was that his father was involved in a scandle, notability is not inherited. The little coverage there is fails WP:GNG and is of poor quality. Fleeting mentions do not = notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: Surely you aren't saying that [22] is just a passing mention or low quality, that just wouldn't be credible given the length and depth of the coverage or the quality of the OCCRP (literally among the highest in the world). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map and before taking the "No consensus" route, I want to give this discussion another week to see if some consensus can emerge, specifically on whether BLP violations are still present and whether, without them, GNG is met, that there is still sourcing beyond passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to relisting comment: The debate seems to have become overly focused on whether the subject is low-profile, but that should not be the core argument of this debate. Being low-profile is a personal preference of Mr Wang. There is some material online about work which Mr Wang or his Foundation supports in a professional capacity, but this does not demonstrate seeking wider publicity, as this material supports the events and the charitable causes, not the donation. There is also a blog, which does refer to some productions Mr Wang has supported, but this is limited to personal reflections on their content among other subjects.
Regardless, none of this contributes to Mr Wang’s notability, which does not meet GNG. What few relevant mentions there are online are either passing, or minor theatre industry press etc. or derive from association with the frigate litigation, which various courts have found to be “scandalous and vexatious” and indeed have found the article subject to be an innocent third party. BLPCRIME states “A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.”
Until I raised this debate, there were appalling unfounded accusations in the article, wrongly connecting Mr Wang to an alleged murder which were hastily removed but should never have been added to begin with. The article has since been updated with unencyclopedic information such as company address locations and disputes with an advisory team. The addition of these minor details at this time does not satisfy GNG. All of this falls short of Wikipedia standards for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT (not my first)
On low profile
You are the one who said he was "low profile" in the context of WP:BIO1E. And it was a fair point to debate. But you should now not be surprised that the accuracy of the claim you asked us to discuss...is now being discussed. I consider the WP:BLP set of rules to not be breached.
On accuracy
If earlier versions of the article were incorrect, but now fixed, then that is a good thing and we should continue to discuss the article as it stands now.
On notability
To try to get us back on the track that User:Liz was steering us towards, that therefore leaves the other main issues of WP:GNG. To satisfy that, we'd generally expect significant coverage in several sources. I think in this context, we should be rigorous about that. So are there at least WP:THREE good sources?
  1. https://www.occrp.org/en/suisse-secrets/leading-taiwan-politician-had-secret-credit-suisse-account-at-time-of-major-defense-corruption-scandal this is significant
  2. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/09/21/2003764737 is borderline, but I think enough to be one of three
  3. https://www.artlini.net/charles-and-chinese-donor-wanted-in-taiwan/ is in depth, but I am not sure about the quality of the source
  4. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/19/prince-charless-charity-mired-controversy-donor-linked-taiwanese/ mentions him several times, it's more than trivial
In summary
So reflecting on the points that we've been directed to focus on, I think it's BLP compliant and I think it's a GNG pass, even if it's not a slam dunk for either. And I remain with my keep vote, and I remain open minded to being persuaded otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is including a feature length news article[23] about Mr Wang's very public court dispute with his financial advisory team unencyclopedic (note that this is feature length coverage which has nothing to do with the frigate scandal)? How is running a website called 'Bruno Wang News' to promote news about Bruno Wang not seeking wider publicity? Thank you for confirming that there are not currently any BLP issues with the page, I apologize for any errors which may have previously been present. I will also note that if they had been found innocent as you claim we'd either have some media coverage of that or the Taiwanese MOJ would have taken down their digital wanted poster but its still live[24]. Mr Wang appears to still be an active fugitive from justice. What we do have coverage of is a conviction in the Jersey islands which returned millions of Mr Wang's stolen dollars to Taiwan, did that slip your mind when listing various courts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There may be debate to be had regarding the content of the page itself (which still contains inaccuracies), but the only issue to be determined here is should it exist at all? To summarise the most important reasons why it shouldn’t:
  1. WPCRIME rules are clear that if someone is only notable in connection with a crime/trial/litigation, a separate page is not necessary.
  2. GNG have not been satisfied to indicate that Mr Wang was mentioned in a widely circulated news story where the frigate litigation aspect does not factor. The other coverage referred to is not material which has had any traction in the media, nor would it.
  3. It has been suggested that Mr Wang has a conviction in Jersey. This is not correct. There are no convictions against Mr Wang, or his family, in any jurisdiction including in Taiwan. Indeed, Mr Wang has been found to be an innocent third party by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in connection with the frigate litigation.
  4. Inaccurate claims like this can cause real harm. Major mistakes were made including wrongly accusing Mr Wang of being connected to an alleged murder and other mistakes are still present in this page. Mistakes have appeared in this debate too, I note that several articles about the wrong Bruno Wang were quoted at one point. Given this, sources here should not be accepted at face value.
In conclusion, whilst we could continue to debate content issues, this isn’t necessary because by applying normal principles, the page should not exist at all. Tidesino (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find guidance in WP:CRIME very relevant and compelling. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."
I'm changing my !vote to redirect. CT55555 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the reporting about the decision by the court in Jersey inaccurate? I remain unconvinced, WP:GNG appears to be met and "disqualify everything even tangentially related to criminal activity and then count the remaining articles" is not how GNG works. GNG is satisfied by [25][26][27][28][29][30], if you want to continue to challenge under WPCRIME you can (that is your most likely path to making your boss happy) but GNG has clearly been met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge (used the wrong term, self-edit CT55555 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)) I found the reference to WP:CRIME by the nominator compelling. I change my vote to redirected and score out my keep from above. CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: do you mean redirect or merge? There is available encyclopedic material relating to that person that is not incorporated into the existing article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you correctly identified that I miswrote, indeed I meant the one that keeps content, so that would be merge (sorry for ambiguity, I tend to vote keep/delete/drafity until now. I'll score out and correct on my next edit. CT55555 (talk) 02:00, 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 redirect to Cheshire East Council. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire East Council bullying and misconduct allegations

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

Essentially a POV fork from Cheshire East Council and trying to fluff it up with the viral Handforth Parish Council incident. Misconduct happens all the time in random local councils. I argue that most of this article falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage. The little of it that is still relevant should be concisified and put into Cheshire East Council. Ovinus (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The parish council incident can be included on the article on Handforth Town Council page, and the rest condensed and put onto the Cheshire East Council page, per nom. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alerting Awoma, Pomegranate and Rimagi, who have been involved in discussions on the article's talk page. QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and providing that Jackie Weaver has the authority to delete it too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahahahaha. Hopefully she boots any keep !voters out of the call. Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose deletion as the article has useful content/history that should be preserved as it may be merged with other articles. Furthermore, merge and delete as the nominator appears to be suggesting isn't an option because of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia attribution requirements. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge and redirect works just as well, I'd support that. In any case, the huge amount of coverage garnered by a funny video does not imply that we should have much stuff on bullying in a borough. Perhaps two paragraphs on the borough's page—one for the video and one for the allegations. It went viral because people were bored in lockdown, not because it deserves our serious coverage, and we should have some editorial discretion there. (Also, I know you're not arguing that it deserves a long article; just wanted to put a longer form rationale since it's relisted.) Ovinus (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Cheshire East Council and selective merge to both that page and Handforth Town Council. I don't really see a need to cover this on a separate page, while it probably has enough coverage to deserve inclusion in some form on the page of the council. I share concerns about WP:NPOV, though I think that having emphasis on selective in selective merge could help to remedy any issues with bias in how the article is written. This would also satisfy the legal requirements associated with WP:CWW, per Buidhe. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:25, 28 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 12:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Sexy Ladies

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

Yet another contested prod. Zero sourcing found on Proquest. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find anything about it. Network is gone and the show was off the air over 10 yrs ago. Oaktree b (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nothing found in a search brought anything that would demonstrate notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find anything other than new show, renewed at G4, and trademark filled passing mentions. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:17, 22 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 Melissa d'Arabian. RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Dollar Dinners

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

Yet another contested prod. I got several hits on ProQuest, but most of them were along the lines of "Melissa d'Arabian, host of Ten Dollar Dinners, to do blah blah blah." Almost none were about the show itself, save for the one Longview source I added. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Melissa d'Arabian. Here is less significant coverage about the subject:
    1. Boyle, Katherine (2012-09-15). "Deal hunting on TV". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Ten Dollar Dinners. The Food Network is a must-watch for the dining-obsessed who could save a few dollars by learning easy, cheap recipes. And Melissa d’Arabian’s “Ten Dollar Dinners” is a good place for the novice cook to start. She focuses on cheap and easy dinners that can feed a family and takes the pledge literally: four people, $10. Yes, she proves it is possible to eat Kale chips and shrimp scampi on a budget. The show airs weekdays on the Food Network."

    2. Evans, Glenn (2009-09-09). "Budget dinners for 9-9-09 Food Network star shares frugal philosophy on 'Ten Dollar Dinners'Budget dinners for 9-9-09 Food Network star shares frugal philosophy on 'Ten Dollar Dinners'". Longview News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "... said Melissa d'Arabian, whose show "Ten Dollar Dinners" reflects the frugal yet tasty philosophy that earned her the top place in season five of "The Next Food Network Star," a kind of "American Idol" for the cooking set. ... Understanding simple flavor profile and having them at the ready is a big part of "Ten Dollar Dinners," which is premised on feeding a family of four for $10 or less."

    3. Acken, Lori (2012-02-19). "Tasty Tv". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2022-05-11. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "ut d'Arabian had a few tricks up her sleeve that helped her ace the competition and earn her her own Food series, "Ten Dollar Dinners if With Melissa d'Arabian," which is still popular three seasons later. ... So by the time she wed her French-born husband, Philippe, at age 34 and produced four daughters over the next three years, she was well prepared to switch gears from helping the House of Mouse save cash and make wise investments to making the d'Arabian house run just as smoothly - and, via "Ten Dollar Dinners," the households of her frugal fans."

    4. Snyder, Leslie (2009-08-04). "Name that show: 'Ten Dollar Dinners'". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "The new name of Melissa d'Arabian's Food Network series is Ten Dollar Dinners. ... The former Keller stay-at-home mom, who now lives near Seattle, won her own show Sunday night on The Next Food Network Star."

    5. Sterbens, Laurie (2009-08-12). "Budget: $10 - Ideas: Infinite - New 'Star' launches Food Network show". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Just over a week ago, 40-year-old mom and self-taught cook Melissa d'Arabian of Kirkland, Wash., was named "The Next Food Network Star" for the show's fifth season. In her new show, "Ten Dollar Dinners," which premiered Sunday, d'Arabian shows viewers how to make creative, tasty meals while adhering to the promise of "four people, 10 bucks, infinite possibilities." Using her own recipes and tips culled from her experience as a home cook, d'Arabian's budget-friendly meals include approachable Parisian and Moroccan menus and sophisticated upgrades for everyday fare such as chicken or pork."

    Cunard (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Melissa d'Arabian. The show itself is not notable for purposes of a standalone article. valereee (talk) 18:27, 30 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 14:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Investigators (2000 TV series)

The Investigators (2000 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could only find press releases. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article a decade ago. At the time, it seemed relevant to create stub articles for all shows currently airing or that had aired on major television networks regardless of how much information was known about them. I have no opinion on whether to keep or delete the article. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff )

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 26 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 13:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Police POV

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

Found one article from the Washington Post, but no more than that. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Yahr, Emily (2011-04-15). "TV Review: 'Police POV' on truTV". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The review notes: "Short of magic, that would be nearly impossible, but truTV is attempting the next best thing on its new live-action cop series, “Police POV,” which debuts Sunday. Fitting officers with tiny, specialized camera equipment, the idea is that the audience will get a first-person, police-eye view as the cops chase down suspected criminals. While a somewhat intriguing idea on paper, the show seems to be trying to enhance a genre that doesn’t really need to be spiced up. ... Unfortunately, letting the audience run in the cops’ footsteps is more likely to give viewers motion sickness. Cameras bounce all over the place during chase scenes, and the dizzying result is hard to view, especially when the police are on foot. ... “Police POV” will tackle several cities — Memphis, Cleveland, Chattanooga — during its run, and while the events may be an adreneline high for those involved, it’s not necessary to take the audience along for the ride via specialized camera."

    2. Kiesewetter, John (2011-04-14). "'Police POV' features familiar Cincy cops". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Mandy Curfiss and Rose Valentino from "Police Women Of Cincinnati" return to TV Sunday — with six other Cincinnati police officers — in the new "Police POV" reality show (10 p.m., tru TV). Most of the 10 episodes feature five female and three male Cincinnati officers. Producers also use footage from two officers in Chattanooga, Tenn., and four in Fort Smith, Ark. The TV series was assembled from video shot early last year by officers wearing tiny "point of view" cameras over their ears, like a Bluetooth earpiece."

    3. Kiesewetter, John (2011-04-17). "McKeown seeks new station. Local police on reality TV again". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The 10 shows were assembled from video shot last year by officers wearing tiny "point of view" (POV) cameras over their ears, like a Bluetooth earpiece. ... Officers Alicia Bruewer, Jennifer Chilton, Melissa Cummings, Andy Davis, Eric Gilbert and Dan Roellig also appear on the show, shot 10 months before TLC came here in October."

    4. South, Todd (2010-11-27). "Cameras film Chattanooga police for new reality TV show". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Cameras are rolling with Chattanooga police for a new reality TV show scheduled to air in April.  The show, "Police POV," follows midsize city police departments across the country.  The truTV cable channel will feature Chattanooga police along with departments in Fort Smith, Ark., Cincinnati and Cleveland, Ohio, on the show. ... To help the audience see events through a police officer's perspective, the show uses a pensized camera that rests atop an officer's earlobe with a wire that attaches to a fist-sized computer where the recording can be reviewed. For the television show, a camera operator also films separate angles with a traditional shoulder-carried camera."

    5. McAlister, Nancy (2011-04-17). "truTV's "Police POV", a whole new look at law enforcement". Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Up close and personal from an officer's point of view is the basis of a truTV series that takes on-the-scene law enforcement to a new level. "Police POV," which premieres Sunday on the network, uses specially designed cameras worn by officers in the field to record encounters, including chases, shootouts and other confrontations."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Belz, Kate (2011-10-03). "Chattanooga becoming a destination for police reality TV shows". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "In one clip on truTV's new show "Police POV," a van veers onto the shoulder of Interstate 24, clips a vehicle and rolls down an embankment, taking out a utility pole. And then the driver pulls onto Rossville Boulevard with Chattanooga police Officer Jim Fielden hot on his tail. ... "Police POV" is one of three police reality TV shows to select Chattanooga as a filming location in the past year. ... "Police POV" allows viewers access to the officers' actual point of view through a small camera fitted to their temple. "Cuff'd" highlights the interactions between cops and freshly arrested young people in the squad car on the way to jail."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Police POV to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article a decade ago. At the time, it seemed relevant to create stub articles for all shows currently airing on major television networks regardless of how much information was known about them. I have no opinion on whether to keep or delete the article. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff )

All but one of them is just "X to appear on Police POV". All those sources confirm is that the show exists, nothing more. How is that significant coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Trainor

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

WP:NBIO Ploni (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melobee

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

Notability, looks to be disbanded by now Happyecheveria (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happyecheveria (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As of right now there are no notability here, sadly. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only three hits in the newspaper archives are notices for the company's annual meeting. A few pressreleases have been disseminated promising disruption and rehaul of music industry practices, but there is no evidence of actual impact. Not notable. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disorder in the Court (TV series)

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

No sourcing found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article a decade ago. At the time, it seemed relevant to create stub articles for all shows currently airing on major television networks regardless of how much information was known about them. I have no opinion on whether to keep or delete the article. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff )

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find no sources for the TV show, plenty using the phrase itself. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another "caught on camera" filler show. I generally think filler video shows usually don't meet N, especially if the only staff heard in the series is an announcer. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 26 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Miracle (TV series)

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

I found a few press releases announcing the show's hosts, but as we all know, press releases are WP:PRIMARY sources. It's also mentioned in passing in various articles about new shows debuting or being renewed on PAX, but that's the key phrase: "in passing". No reviews seem to have been published at any point in the show's history, nor did it do anything worthy of media attention outside a couple "Local X to appear on It's a Miracle" type human-interest stories which are not enough on their own to support the article. This show was just... there for its entire life. I'm not expecting FA-level coverage on a no-budget Christian show on a network that doesn't even exist anymore, but this one seems to have flown completely under the radar. However, the show's relatively long shelf life (six seasons) is the only reason I'm sending this to AFD and not PROD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changing my vote to keep based on the sources found by Cunard MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2009). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 676. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The book provides 247 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes that It's a Miracle was first telecast September 6, 1998, and last telecast August 12, 2006. The book lists the hosts: Billy Dean (1998), Nia Peeples (1998–1999), Richard Thomas (1998–2003), and Roma Downey (2003–2004). The book notes: "Each episode of this inspirational series presented several incidents in which miracles had changed or saved the lives of people. Most segments used re-creations of the actual incidents, with the real people describing what had happened to them, and in some cases actually participating. After their stories had been told, some of them were introduced to the studio audience in the theater from which It's a Miracle originated. Among the topics were medical miracles, dreams and visions, guardian angels, premonitions, and warning voices. One segment told of a man who didn't understand why he had been drawn to the Hermosa Beach Pier until meeting a fisherman with whom he became friendly. He found that his kidneys were a perfect match for the fisherman's, who needed a transplant to save his life. In another a man survived the crash of his small plane when he was guided by an angelic presence, and got out of the burning plane just before it exploded. Each episode also included a few "miraculous moments"—short man-on-the-street-type interviews with people who related what they believed to have been miracles in their lives." The book provides one more paragraph about the show.

    2. Peralta, Jessica (2002-04-23). "Making of a miracle // San Clemente Hospital serves as the site of a PAX network program, 'It's a Miracle'". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Producers of the PAX network show, It's a Miracle, thought the hospital would make a good location for filming a re-enactment of a "miracle," and it turned several hospital employees into actors. ... Actor Richard Thomas hosts the show, which began in 1998 and re-creates true-life accounts of miracles. ... The miracle filmed Monday was related to the story of Sandy Rish, 49, of Fullerton. She played herself in the film. ... At the hospital, the film crew shot in the radiology unit for an MRI scene, in an emergency room, in a patient room in acute rehabilitation and in an operating room. ... It's a Miracle -- a 60-minute reality-based show -- is aired locally at 8 p.m. Thursdays on Channel 8. Rish's story has yet to be scheduled."

    3. Dickenson, Elane (2004-01-20). "'It's a Miracle' - Two local stories being filmed by PAX TV". Wallowa County Chieftain. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Two different producers of the PAX TV cable station picked up on both of these stories separately, and a crew arrived in Wallowa County from Los Angeles last week to recreate the stories for its popular "It's a Miracle" program hosted by Roma Downey. ... Filming started on the Hileman story Sunday morning at the Wallowa County Sheriff's Office, the nerve center for the search for her in the fall of 2002. It was moved later in the day to the Dave Nelson place in Allen Canyon in rural Lostine. ... Filming continued until after dark and through Monday, when Mischelle Hileman and her parents, Benny and Jan, who live also live on Allen Canyon Road, were interviewed and filmed. ... Among those who played a part in the TV reenactment were Bill Lehr and Marilyn Siefert, the friends ..."

    4. Plunkett, Marguerite M. (1998-10-01). "'John-Boy' Will Co-host 'It's a Miracle' on PAX-TV". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Richard Thomas, whose role as John-Boy in The Waltons was as wholesome as wholesome gets, will host family friendly PAX TV's show It's a Miracle, Paxson Communications Chairman Lowell "Bud" Paxson said Wednesday. Thomas joins actress Nia Peeples as co-host of the show, replacing country singer Billy Dean. The change is set for this Sunday. ...  It's a Miracle is a one-hour weekly series that airs at 9 p.m. Sunday. The program tells stories of real-life miracles, such as a pet that saved family members' lives and the success of a young man who started life as a drug-addicted, abandoned baby."

    5. Farrell, Neil (2003-08-20). "Surf Survival Story Filmed - 'It's a Miracle': Surfing Accident Re-Enacted". The Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "Mike Downey's miraculous survival from a surfing accident in January will be a featured segment on an upcoming episode of TV's "It's a Miracle" on the Pax Network. A film crew was in town Friday and Saturday to interview those involved and to re-enact the accident that almost claimed the Los Osos resident and professional surfer's life. Christopher Poole, a freelance director working on Downey's story, has worked for the reality show since it began. Now entering its sixth season, the show will have eight new episodes, with the re-enactment of Downey's near-death experience set for airing in mid-October, said Poole. Actor Richard Thomas, of The Waltons fame, is the host of the show."

    6. Cohen, Ruth-Ellen (2001-08-01). "Lost watch story to air on 'It's a Miracle'". Bangor Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "A feel-good story about a watch that lay at the bottom of Phillips Lake for 68 years until it was unearthed by a determined scuba diver will be featured early next year on the Pax Network show, "It's a Miracle." ... Hosted by actor Richard Thomas, "It's a Miracle" airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Channel 33. A four-member crew from Los Angeles will visit the Bangor area next week to begin filming for the 15-minute segment, which will combine interviews of the actual participants with recreated scenes."

    7. Calder, Amy (2002-03-14). "Lost ring story to air tonight on 'It's a Miracle'". Morning Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

      The article notes: "The true story of a Fairfield man whose ring was lost last year in Waterville before it turned up in a box of golf clubs in Florida will air at 8 p.m. Thursday on the PAX TV show, "It's A Miracle." The show, hosted by Richard Thomas of "The Waltons" fame, is available through Adelphia cable as well as via regular broadcast in some areas. The show will recount the saga of Jonathan Klane, 41, of Fairfield, who lost a 70-year-old ring in February 2001. ... "It's a Miracle" producers contacted Klane last year after a story about his experience appeared in the Morning Sentinel as well as on the Internet. A television crew from California came to Waterville last June and filmed the show at locations including Larsen's Jewelry Store on Main Street, and Mail-It-Quik on College Avenue, according to Klane, who appears in the show."

    8. Less significant coverage:
      1. Pennington, Gail (2002-10-03). "PAX: The Last Refuge for Wholesome Programming". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "The most enduring Pax original is "It's a Miracle" (10 p.m. weeknights), in which Richard Thomas ("The Waltons") introduces feel-good stories of reunions and rescues (tonight, a moose is saved!), all badly re-enacted but calculated to ensure a much better night's sleep than watching the news ever would."

      2. Smith, Austin (1999-08-23). "Goodness!; G-rated TV; Can angels save newest network?". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "It turns out that Pax is more successful when it doesn’t try to clone “Touched By an Angel.” Take “It’s a Miracle” (), for example. Starting its second season Thursday night at 8, “It’s a Miracle” is sort of a reality-based news show, Pax-style. Host Richard Thomas reports on modern-day miracles, which are told in reenactments and in interviews with the people who witnessed them. Corny as they may be, you’d have to have a heart made out of concrete not to like the stories on “It’s a Miracle,” especially the one about a beloved dog named Sailor who was so sick he would have been euthanized if not for the intervention of another dog named Angel."

      3. Mason, M.S. (1999-08-20). "Pax TV debuts a new lineup of 'uplifting' family programs". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "It's a Miracle (Thursdays) can get pretty gooey, too, but unlike the superior "Twice in a Lifetime," it's a stranger-than-fiction approach to perfectly plausible events with more or less happy endings. Host Richard Thomas (John Boy on "The Waltons") lends some credibility because he projects sincerity. But the title, and worse, the melodramatic tone of the stories, seem excessive for the kinds of events the show chronicles."

      4. Boedeker, Hal (1999-08-24). "Hold Back Hallelujahs for PAX TV - The Network's Pat Formula for Feel-Good Programs Cheapens the Messages". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "Another TV veteran, Richard Thomas, plays the chipper host of It's a Miracle, beginning its second season on Thursday. The show is a hybrid of Rescue 911 and Dateline - the cheapie graphics recall the NBC newsmagazine. The show mixes tacky re-enactments of unusual incidents and interviews with those who lived through them. There are astonishing recoveries by a lifeless patient in the operating room and by a declining dog visited by a pooch named Angel."

      5. Hager, Peggy (2003-11-27). "The Power of Prayer - Dying of Lung Infections at Age 4 1/2, Girl Lively at 10". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "Elizabeth's story will be profiled tonight on Pax network's It's A Miracle series, airing today at 8 p.m. on satellite networks and at 11 p.m. on cable. The episode, hosted by Roma Downey, will be a combination of a re-creation of the event and interviews with the family."

      6. Crump, Sarah (2001-09-15). "Cleveland-area folks to re-enact hospital 'miracle' for TV show". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "Marty Rosenblum is not an actor. He's the suite-catering supervisor at Gund Arena. But a friend who is a casting agent thought he would be just right for a part in Pax TV's "It's a Miracle.""

      7. Barr, Annette (2002-05-02). "Show Recounts Area Woman's 'Miracle'". News & Record. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "More than a year ago, Carol McAdams prepared for her television debut. The story of a dulcimer and her search for a connection to her father landed her a segment on PAX-TV's show It's a Miracle. The show is hosted by Richard Thomas, made famous by his role as John-Boy on the popular 1970s series The Waltons. McAdams' segment, titled Instrument of God, will air tonight at 8. ... McAdams re-enacted her story for a film crew in Asheboro in January 2001. Both Collectors Antique Mall and Evans Music Center were used as locations during taping. Richard Evans of Evans Music Center also is featured in McAdams' segment."

      8. "Peeples, Dean to Host 'Miracle'". The Seattle Times. 1998-09-06. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "Actress-singer Nia Peeples will join country crooner Billy Dean as co-host of fledgling Pax TV's "It's a Miracle." ... Story categories include romantic miracles, answered prayers, angel encounters, medical miracles, good Samaritans, miracles from the animal kingdom and children's inspirational stories."

      9. Thompson, Kevin D. (1998-08-30). "New Programs Scheduled, Too". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

        The article notes: "It's a Miracle. What it's about: Think Unsolved Mysteries meets Oprah. Producers re-create miracles, then interview the people involved. You'll hear about dogs who saved little boys from drowning and lovers who fell in love at an organ donors convention. Wait . . . the producers swear It's A Miracle won't turn into a sleazy, reality-based show. ... It's hosted by the odd-couple pair of Nia Peebles (Dance Party) and country singer Billy Dean. If the stories are boring, at least we know the hosts can sing and dance."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow It's a Miracle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced. All but the first of those is just some variant of "Local X to appear on It's a Miracle". They confirm that the show exists, but nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources that discuss local people who have appeared on the show provide significant coverage of the background and production of the show's episodes so establish notability about the show. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      They're still just local human-interest stories, not actually about the show itself. All they confirm is that the show exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources that cover the background and production of the show's episodes do more than confirm that the shows exists. They provide a basis for verifying content about each of the article's episodes and the show's history. Cunard (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Which of those sources gives background info on the show? I didn't see a word of that anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Brooks & Marsh 2009, Plunkett 1998, Farrell 2003, and Cohen 2001 all provide background about the show and the show's episodes in the quotes I have provided here. Cunard (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          And they're just going to automatically add themselves to the article, right? I don't know why you even bother digging up sources if you're just gonna dump them in the AFD and just hope and pray that somehow they add themselves to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I previously replied to you here about why I do not always add sources to articles I support retaining at AfD. Cunard (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis of Cunard's sources:
  1. The first source is an encyclopedia, which itself is not sufficient absent anything else.
  2. This one is all about the hospital, and says literally nothing about the show other than it airs on PAX. After the first paragraph, it gives up on mentioning the show entirely.
  3. The Wallowa County source does not load for me.
  4. This is a press release made by the show itself.
  5. This also says literally nothing about the show other than it airs on PAX, and doesn't even talk about the show after the first paragraph.
  6. This? Same deal. Literally all it says about the show is that it "airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Channel 33."
  7. This? Says nothing about the show other than that Richard Thomas hosted it.
  • So out of eight sources, one is dead already, and the only information gleaned from ALL OF THEM is "this show airs on PAX". Where is information on production? Hosts? The length of the show? The content of the show? I don't see an iota of it in all of that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment/Notes on your Analysis
  1. From WP:PSTS Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability Tertiary sources(encyclopedias) are fine. While better to have secondary, they still help establish notability per policy.
  2. Short but detailed article about the filming of an episode, multiple mentions of the show and its production process. First 159 of of 548 words Miracles might not happen every day. But it did Monday for San Clemente Hospital. Producers of the PAX network show, It's a Miracle,... ...The show itself takes real people with real experiences, Jackson said. ``Call it coincidence, we like to call it miracle. are about the show, then 193 of 548 words discuss the Rish(mention she plays herself also) and the miracle. Then another 77 words about the show Jackson said the show's researchers look for inspirational stories like this to re-tell for the viewing public. ``Everything these people have gone through are stories that need to be told," he said. He said the show has produced hundreds of such stories. Jackson said it usually takes about a day for interviews with those involved and two to three days for the filming. Rish's story was being filmed at San Clemente Hospital and in her Fullerton cafe. Then a small bit about the hospital and where they filmed, and list the other people from the hospital that were featured in the show. Then those closing sentence with the shows information. Please explain what you mean it says literally nothing about the show other than where it airs, and explain how it gave up mentioning the show after the first paragraph. This article discusses the show, and gives details about this specific episode and where/when it was filmed
  3. Here is an alternate link to the Wallowa County source. It covered production information of this and another show that was being filmed there simultaneously.
  4. Explain what you mean by press release made by the show itself. It was written by Author/Byline: Marguerite M. Plunkett - Palm Beach Post Staff Writer What does The Palm Beach Post or M. Plunkett have to do with the show or it's production? What is the relation you are stating when you say made by the show? "Thomas' publicist couldn't be reached Wednesday. Sloan would not reveal the terms of his contract."Does that sound like someone from the inside?
  5. Similar to #2, detailed article about the filming of a specific episode. First 150 of 449 words are about the show/filmcrew/episode/director. 185 of 449 about the miracle itself, mentioning a few names of people. Then 49 words, mentioning those people and others invovled volunteered to take part in the show. Also describes how the episodes subject's wife found it difficult to watch the film crew recreate the scene at hospital. Once again, it talks about the show/episode, and it does so well after the first paragraph. Explain you reasoning for saying it doesn't talk about show past first paragraph.
  6. Couldn't load archive, but same article here. 216 of 335 about the show. It tells us the shows host, it tells us the name of the segment the local women is about. It also names two other segments that are airing on the same episode with a brief description of one. It tells us the local women re-enacted her story, tells us city it was filmed tells us two specific location where it was filmed and the presumably owner of one of the location is also featured in the episode. How is that nothing but "airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Channel 33"?
  7. The show, hosted by Richard Thomas of "The Waltons" fame, is available through Adelphia cable as well as via regular broadcast in some areas. Info about show's host and its broadcasting availability. "It's a Miracle" producers contacted Klane last year after a story about his experience appeared in the Morning Sentinel as well as on the Internet. A television crew from California came to Waterville last June and filmed the show at locations including Larsen's Jewelry Store on Main Street, and Mail-It-Quik on College Avenue, according to Klane, who appears in the show. Details when show contacted the subject, along with exact locations where they filmed the show, mention Klane appears in show. Rest of article just about Klane. This one is only one with just "first paragraph about show". 187 words if you want to include everything from that section, or 126 words if you exclude the part describe the miracle the episode is about. But it definitely tells more than just Richard Thomas hosted it.
    From the sources he listed, a few talked about production of the show(or an episode). The first one list all the host for the 7 years that it was on air, other sources mention the host at the time of printing, some detailing what else they were known for. Multiple articles provided mention it is an hour long show, included in one of the quotes from above. Multiple source describe the show as combination of reenactments, interviews, and involved people telling the story. The sources he cited literally describe all the things that you claim you don't see an iota of any of it. I don't understand why dismiss everything and then claim they don't provide any info. Please read and review articles before dismissing it completely. I can't believe any of these articles were seriously read when you claim information that is actually in the articles isn't there. If you are going to argue that something is not significant coverage, please do not claim things about the source that aren't true. Unfortunately some people will not read the source and will just read your comment and believe it to be true, taking advantage of that is not productive. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • additional comment Found an additional source while I was looking for sources about the three books he wrote, I only found brief mentions such as this one. GOODE, STEPHEN (March 1, 2003) "Spirit TV - The Small Screen Takes on Eternity." The World & I, vol. 18, no. 3, sec. TELEVISION, p. 70. - Mentioned multiple times throughout article, but it is not focus of article. Describes what a typical episode consist of, and describes a specific episode's story. Talks about host Richard Thomas, mentions his book of same name It's a Miracle, a compilations of stories from the show. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As an admirable effort has been made by Cunard (talk), I feel it was obligatory to review their work and reassess my vote. I recall having previously been swayed by this user on another AFD vote and voted keep. On this occasion, I remain a delete vote. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) makes a solid argument the sources listed do not constitute significant coverage conferring notability on the subject, and so I remain unconvinced in the articles notability, hence it ought to be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will focus on the first two sources on my list of sources. It is undisputed that the first source, Brooks & Marsh 2009, provides significant coverage about the show. It is a 247-word entry about the show.

    I will spend time looking at the second source, Peralta 2002. The article says that actor Richard Thomas is the show's host, the show began in 1998, the show is in its fifth season, the show is 60 minutes, Peter Jackson is the field producer of the show, the show "re-creates true-life accounts of miracles", interviewing people involved in the miracle takes roughly a day, and filming takes two to three days. The article discusses the production details of an episode involving Sandy Sish who had had seizures. It says that San Clemente Hospital was chosen to reenact the "miracle" and that hospital employees became actors for the episode. The hospital employees who acted in the episode included a doctor from a San Clemente hospital, a nurse, a physical therapist, a radiologist, and two operating room surgical technicians. Further production details are that filming took place in "the radiology unit for an MRI scene, in an emergency room, in a patient room in acute rehabilitation and in an operating room". The substantial coverage of the production and background constitutes significant coverage of the television show.

    These two sources are enough for It's a Miracle to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The other sources provide production details about other episodes; examples are Dickenson 2004, Farrell 2003, and Calder 2002.

    Cunard (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I found a brief but critically negative source about the subject:
    1. Mason, M.S. (1999-08-20). "Pax TV Debuts a New Lineup of 'Uplifting' Family Programs". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18.

      The article provides 67 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "It's a Miracle (Thursdays) can get pretty gooey, too, but unlike the superior "Twice in a Lifetime," it's a stranger-than-fiction approach to perfectly plausible events with more or less happy endings. Host Richard Thomas (John Boy on "The Waltons") lends some credibility because he projects sincerity. But the title, and worse, the melodramatic tone of the stories, seem excessive for the kinds of events the show chronicles."

    Cunard (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple articles on the show or individual episodes of the show were already found, the show was on the air for ~7 years and filmed all over, we can assume there are others out there, but more than enough have been found to pass WP:GNG. Each source does not need to contain every little detail about the show, a combination of many sources can give us the information we need. The sources already provided above aren't just trivial mentions they are significant enough to help pass GNG. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the sources contain no detail. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review the details I provided above in my comment about your analysis when you previously claimed that they provide no detail. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't prove at all how the sources say anything about the show. I just went through every single one, and combined, all we know is that it aired on PAX. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't prove they say anything about the show? What are you talking about. I talked about several things the articles mention about the show in my comments above. I literally quoted or described what they said about the show. This isn't a scientific proof, either they talked about the show and told us about it or they didn't. They did. I can't be bothered to argue if you are going to just keep claiming all they did was tell us it airs on PAX. Also I asked several questions about your prior analysis. Feel free to respond to them. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no question this TV show existed and someone somewhere discussed it online. the issue is whether or not the coverage is significant. The coverage is not significant. The sources are not meaningful, substantive coverage of the article subject in reliable, independent publications. Hence this article subject simply is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He said all we know from the coverage is it aired on PAX. I said they said a lot more than that, that was what my response was to. If you agree with him, you agree with him. WikiVirusC(talk) 03:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on the extensive list above, coverage of the show exists, while most of it is trivial, added together I think we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. Passes at the very least WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 18:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interestingly, all 3 book volumes are in my local library. It had 1.6 million weekly viewers at one point. Never mind that, with the sources above this passes GNG.Jacona (talk) 12:30, 30 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 07:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 55 kg

2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 55 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable wrestling tournament. Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Also nominating the following:[reply]

2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 60 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 63 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 67 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 72 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 77 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 82 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 87 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 97 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 Vehbi Emre & Hamit Kaplan Tournament – Men's Greco-Roman 130 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment Prior year tournament pages appear to include non-English sources suggesting notability (e.g., 2014 Vehbi Emre Tournament) and there are numerous English sources about the event (e.g. [31] for 2022, [32] for 2017). I can't say for certain that the English sources alone meet WP:GNG and I can't contextualize the non-English sources well enough to know if they are WP:RS, but there seems to be more here than just the poorly-sourced 2022 page. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 05:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALBA Human Rights Documentary Film Festival

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

I found no significant coverage for this film festival. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google scholar indicates this article mentions the festival, but I can't open it, so have no idea if it's significant. https://www.torrossa.com/it/resources/an/4691960 When you say you didn't find any significant coverage, is it logical for me to assume that means you found some coverage you considered to be not significant? If so, can you share it please, in case we all collectively find enough stuff that might add up to significance?
I also found a brief mention in "CARMEL INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL TO SCREEN FILM PROFESSOR'S NEW DOCUMENTARY." States News Service, 20 Oct. 2015. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A432218854/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=00e9c7ec. Accessed 11 May 2022 by searching for "ALBA Human Rights Film Festival" (i.e. by dropping the "Documentary") CT55555 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to share all the pages of trivial mentions and non-independent sources. Notability doesn't work like that anyway on Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK... I can't force you. But it seemed like a reasonable question. I was only asking because the way you said it suggested you found some stuff. WP:BASIC does allow us to consider multiple independent sources and the way you wrote did not make it clear what you found. CT55555 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite my comments above, I think I've searched enough to establish that while the festival does exist and seems pretty cool, it's not sufficiently notable for wikipedia. CT55555 (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable at all, self referenced... Scrap it and forget it. Kolma8 (talk) 03:40, 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. Limited participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Month of Sundays (2001 film)

AfDs for this article:
A Month of Sundays (2001 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kept at last AFD because it was the last role for one of the actors, but this alone is not an assertation of notability if there is nothing else to say about the film. I was unable to find any actual reviews, just a bunch of obituaries on Rod Steiger that mentioned this movie in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Stieger's IMDB page lists this as his third-to-last film role before passing. The only claim to notability isn't even accurate, and while Stieger meets the "significant involvement" portion of WP:NFILM, it is definitely not a major part of his career. -fuzzy510 (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment review, albeit short, at Variety [33]. Not enough on its own, but a possible start? DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep two reviews are now cited in the reception section, weak because the Variety one is short, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 26 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 12:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwing

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

I found no significant coverage for either company mentioned. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of sourcing. And if either company does prove to be notable, give them separate articles next time. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a second I thought it was referring to the SNES game Pilotwings. It is unsourced and I could not find any sources Rlink2 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel of Pennsylvania Avenue

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

Deprodded with addition of a review, but it's a fairly short review by a freelance writer and I was unable to find anything else on ProQuest, Newspapers.com, etc. Seems to fail WP:NFILM Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Christmas Encyclopedia, 3d ed. SL93 (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources you cited are all just press-release generated blurbs to go along with the TV Guide (note how all three are un-attributed and directly adjacent to the TV Guide listings). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves two sources. SL93 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added some content to the article but pickings are extremely thin with this one. This looks like it was one of those Hallmark films (but not made for Hallmark Channel itself) that got a little lip service, but no true reviews. If there were some solid reviews out there then that may be different, but much of what I'm finding more covers this in passing. The focus is typically on Ulrich in the ones I've found. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Albania Friendship Association

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

Fails WP:ORG. I could find no sources for its English name. and gnews is only 1 hit for its Spanish name. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As noted by Soman, there is a bias in available English sources. I'd say that the page should be kept and improved, rather than deleted to be sucked into the black hole like all the other pages on here which are deleted, sometimes to never be seen again. Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small, defunct organization and so little is available that there is not anything to write about. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist had generated some participation so I’m giving it a 3rd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve per Historyday01. I would like to see more about what the organization actually is or was if sources permit it. All it says right now is that it was an organization. But, what kind? Huggums537 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aside from the sources in the article, the NGO is covered in the eighth chapter of La Transición en directo: narrativas digitales de una historia reciente and Aragón Digital. Its activities (in particular its connections to the PCE (M-L)) seem to have significant coverage from multiple independent RS. Page needs to be improve to include more of this, but WP:DEL-CONTENT reminds us that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. And, since this is a non-commercial organization with activities that had international scope and were covered significantly by multiple independent RS, this article passes the relevant notability criteria of WP:NGO.— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:26, 26 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 03:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Sihag

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

I declined the speedy delete due to the comments on the talk page and at least some assertion of notability. I believe it should be deleted but I'd like to have more discussion and come to a consensus in the community. I'm unconvinced on the notability of the individual meeting WP:GNG and I have concerns about WP:ADV. Might be a good idea to review this from a WP:BLP point of view, and the sources provided could use a check from others (a bit of a language barrier for me).--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It seems WP:PROMO
  2. It was rejected many times at AfD and then the editor seems to have bypassed AfD
  3. If I understand the comments on the talk page correctly, the editor who created the article is saying it was created by a public relations ("PR") person/agent. Now that is not 100% clear, but it seems like what they are saying, which is probably why it seems like WP:PROMO. CT55555 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 06:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjerwas

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

I have no issue with recreating this given decent information, but what we have is a bad case of an unverifiable geostub, and given the problems we've had with those, it needs to go as it stands. I could not identify it with any place on a map, for starters. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. North America1000 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I hope you withdraw this nomination, as it appears to me to be a failure of BEFORE. As much as I hate geostubs, it meets GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place. The 2011 Census of India website is permadead, but Census2011.co.in, although blacklisted, replicates the actual census data accurately and IMO is a useful substitute until we get Census 2022. If you search Sanjerwas on that site, it comes up as a village in Dadri tehsil of Bhiwani district. In 2016, Dadri tehsil was upgraded to a district, Charkhi Dadri district, taking all its villages with it. The name Sanjerwas also comes up on a bunch of historical censuses if you search GBooks. I've no idea how you couldn't identify it on a map - it comes right up under a slight variant spelling (Sanjarwas vs Sanjerwas - these slight differences are extremely common with Indian village name transliterations) when I search GMaps, right next to Phogat (see [34]). It's also listed on the official map for the district on the district's website. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Sanjarwas. Meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally-recognised place. As shown above the village is listed on the Charkhi Dadri district map and is also on Google Maps under the name of Sanjarwas. AusLondonder (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it should be with the E - that's the spelling on the Census. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PMC. Meets GEOLAND as a populated and legally-recognized place -- Ab207 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. cleanup during the discussion has rendered the nom and early !votes moot as far as sourcing existing to improve it Star Mississippi 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Foley Catholic High School

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

Article reeks of promotion, boasting about the extracurriculars, academics, & other information you can gather if you pop over to Bishop Foley's website. What's the difference between reading this over the information you can gather online? Also, the (now deleted) section about the school's namesake, Bishop John Samuel Foley was paraphrased directly from the school handbook. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First, nominator has not pointed to a reason to delete. Second, I find it hard to believe that a 50+ year old school in a major US city isn't notable. If memory serves, there was quite a bit of news generated when they moved. Please note that poor sourcing and especially SCHOOLCRUFT have been rampant on Detroit area schools for years. An article being poor quality is not a reason to delete. 174.212.227.174 (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, but I clearly stated a reason. Bishop Foley is notable, but this level of school cruft is abysmal. Also, I looked, and there are no reputable sources besides that a former teacher & priest sexually abused some students. That on its own is notable, but how does it connect to the big picture?
    P.S. To be completely honest, I am slightly biased, as I'm a student at Bishop Foley. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some guy just went in and deleted all the school cruft. I would close this if I knew how. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete firstly, schools aren't inherently notable. Also, this article is promotional garbage, so better to delete it and start again if decent sourcing can be found by someone without a blatant COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have one source of the time:[1] The local community paper has a free online archive through its own system (I used it to do WOPR (Michigan) this year. I have to say I was a bit underwhelmed with the coverage in Detroit papers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Catholic School Rises". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. August 8, 1964. p. 4. Retrieved May 12, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No valid rationale for deletion and clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly promo and fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent sources available to establish notability. The Banner talk 11:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ORGCRIT is not a necessary condition for a not-for-profit school's notability; per WP:NSCHOOL, all a not-for-profit school needs to do for notability is to satisfy WP:GNG. And it does; I'm seeing multiple independent reliable sources that cover the school; newspapers.com returns over 1000 results for "Bishop Foley High School" when searching is restricted to publications from Michigan and about 250 results when searching for "Bishop Foley Catholic High School" when also limiting results to Michigan. I'm seeing a ton of non-trivial coverage of the school by multiple independent reliable sources, including the Detroit Free Press and the Times-Herald of Port Huron, Michigan. The coverage available through newspapers.com includes coverage of high school athletics, coverage of volunteer activities that the school performs, coverage of the school's academics, as well as coverage of scandals involving the school—the corpus of independent coverage by RS is quite thorough. To be frank, I just don't know how this wasn't considered before this school was nominated for deletion. Issues with promotionalism have been resolved through ordinary editing and the article as it is now is nowhere near WP:TNT level. The deletion policy notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Seeing as the article can reasonably be improved through ordinary editing, the deletion policy indicates that this article should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:16, 27 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 TruTV#Original programming 2. ✗plicit 11:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Pursuit (2006 TV series)

Hot Pursuit (2006 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of 146 articles deprodded due to rapid-fire nomination; the rest can be viewed at this userpage, along with various other extremely low-quality articles. Tagged as unsourced since 2017, but it has never had any real sourcing since the creation in 2006. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete owing to a lack of in-depth coverage about this series. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sutrisno Bin Darimin

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

Article created by blocked user. Non notable weightlifting competitor. Does not satisfy WP:N nor GNG Whiteguru (talk) 02:26, 20 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! 05:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. If an article like "list of weightlifting records" or something exists, he could be mentioned on there, but otherwise isn't worth his own article. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable as he won medals at the World Championships, Asian Championships and World Junior Championships. Article needs improving, not deleting. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the article was nominated for deletion because of notability, my idea is Keep, as winning multiple awards at notable tournaments. But if the reason o nomination is being created by a blocked user, I have a natural idea.ZanciD (talk) 23:05, 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. Star Mississippi 02:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Kemp

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

There is no presumption tha the gives of state governors are notable, and the main reference at least tis unabashed pr, were she says whatever she (or her pr agenta) wants to. Her own accomplishments do not amount to notability DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

most of this is trivial, and "The governor and his wife,... have pushed..." does not say anything about her actual role DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is about her or includes her as the topic, includes biographical detail, descriptions of her political work, and her accomplishments. Beccaynr (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC) And I would otherwise update this article with more information to help better demonstrate this, but I find the current citation format unfamiliar and a barrier to quickly contributing to this article. However, I think a close review of the sources identified in this discussion shows sustained state and national coverage of her and her work that is sufficient for WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her independent work has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have stricken my previous "redirect" !vote per the comments and citations provided by TJMSmith and Beccaynr. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reference formatting is a little strange, but there is significant refrences. Craigwikiman (talk) 17:03, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry's World

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

PRODded by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) who claimed lack of notability, but subsequently deprodded by NemesisAT (talk · contribs) because the PRODder nominated too many articles in quick succession — 200, according to his count. But I have to agree with Hammer here — there are zero results about this TV show in Google News. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod rationale; there just aren't any sources. A further search on ProQuest was no more fruitful. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator, lacking sources. CT55555 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I'm willing to reconsider if somebody actually has more luck finding better sources than I've been able to. Since this show premiered 20 years ago, I did run a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not Google well, and really just didn't find anything that would make a difference: I found glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of Michael McGowan's later work (e.g. Saint Ralph, One Week or All My Puny Sorrows), I found a couple of stray mentions of it being nominated for a midlevel television award (Banff Rockies) that would be acceptable if the show had solid sourcing overall but isn't highly meganotable enough to clinch a WP:TVSHOW pass all by itself if it's the only evidence of notability we can find, and I found accidental text matches in phrases like "York quotes the late horticulturalist Henry Kock from the University of Guelph...In Henry's world..." or "Student Frank McCarthy-Whalen was thrilled to be able to wear Henry's world championship medal", and I found press releases self-published by the Family Channel announcing its own programming schedule — but the strongest source I actually found about the show was a 62-word blurb in an omnibus listicle about all the new Canadian kids' TV shows that debuted on any Canadian TV channel in fall 2002, which is far from enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First hit I got was the National Post here. Even were it not notable, surely it would be a redirect to List of programs broadcast by Family Channel#Animated Series 5. Nfitz (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Challen, Paul (2002-09-28). "Welcome to Henry's World: A lively new children's series finds its place in Canadian animation history". National Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The TV profile notes: "Little Henry Wiggins is an eight-year-old boy who has one heck of a vivid imagination. Like most kids, his fancy lands him in trouble from time to time. ... Henry's World is making animation history as the first stop-motion series ever produced entirely in Canada. ... The fact that there's a lot of kid-based reality in Henry's World is no accident. Series creator/producer Michael McGowan used his parenting experiences with his own son, named — you guessed it! — Henry, in developing the title character and his pals, Fraidy Begonia, Doris the Dragon, the eccentric Uncle Neptune and school bully Darwin."

    2. Ball, Ryan (2003-03-06). "Alliance Atlantis Plunges into Second Season of Henry's World". Animation Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

      The article notes: "AAC KIDS, Alliance Atlantis’ children’s label, has begun principal photography on the second season of the stop-motion animated series, Henry’s World. Produced in association with The Family Channel Inc. and with the participation of the Canadian Television Fund, the show is seen on more than 50 countries worldwide and Alliance Atlantis hopes to extend its reach with a showing at MIP-TV."

    3. Crump, William D. (2019). "Henry's World". Happy Holidays—Animated!: A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year's Cartoons on Television and Film. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 134. ISBN 978-1-4766-7293-9. Retrieved 2022-05-08 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The first stop-motion animated series produced entirely in Canada, this children's television program ran for 26 episodes on the Family Channel from 2002 to 2005. The protagonist Henry Wiggins was an eight-year-old boy who discovered at the age of five that each time he ate his mother's mashed carrots, he could have one wish fulfilled. Those who knew Henry's secret included best friend Fraidy Begonia, pet dog Margaret, and closet dragon Doris. Other characters: Henry's parents, Uncle Neptune, teacher Ms. Pierre, and Darwin the fat bully."

    4. "Henry's World". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

      The article notes: "While hilarity and high-jinks reign supreme, Henry also learns some of life's lessons along the way. But while Henry has been given the key to unlock universal mysteries, his road to enlightenment is liberally peppered with the incredible and outlandish escapades that only an eight-year-old could dream up."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Switch On". The Australian. 2002-10-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "Henry's World. 4.10pm, ABC. Apparently this is the first Canadian stop-motion animated series. Make of that what you will. Henry is a young boy who develops super powers when he eats carrots, and although you suspect that this is just a conspiracy to get children to eat vegetables, it will appeal to its young audience."

      2. Courtis, Brian (2002-10-20). "Critic's Choice". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "Henry's World, Tuesday, ABC, 4.10pm Think the kids will be fooled by Henry Wiggins? I doubt it. Still, there are less entertaining ways to get them to polish off those vegetables. Henry is an eight-year-old boy who discovers he gains extraordinary powers whenever he eats his mother's mushy carrots. They can send him off to Pluto or tunnelling through the earth. But his adventures, often with his friends, his pet dog Margaret and Doris the Dinosaur, often lead to high jinks. Henry's World is the first stop-motion animated series produced entirely in Canada. Mushy carrots? Wait until Henry discovers the wonders of broccoli!"

      3. "From bad puppets to Atwood Stories; Canadian lineup borrows old ideas, tries some outrageous new ones and relies heavily on documentaries". Waterloo Region Record. 2002-09-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "And Henry's World, the first stop-motion animated series ever entirely produced in Canada, follows the adventures of an eight-year-old boy whenever he eats his mom's mushy carrots."

      4. "Greenfingers vie for title". Sunday Mail. 2002-10-20. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "The ABC welcomes the new series Henry's World at 4.10pm on Tuesday. It is the story of Henry Wiggins, an eight-year-old boy, who gains amazing powers whenever he eats his mother's mushy carrots."

      5. "Canada has 7 nominations for Rockies". The Hamilton Spectator. The Canadian Press. 2003-04-09. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "Canada's contenders in the Banff TV festival include a made-for-TV movie, animation, sports programs ... Canada also shares nominations in animation for Henry's World: Darwin For A Day, and performance programming for Le Mozart Noir: Reviving A Legend."

      6. Barnier, Linda (2002-10-22). "ChannelSurf - Tv Highlights". The Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-08. Retrieved 2022-05-08.

        The article notes: "HENRY'S WORLD 4.10pm, ABC HAVING trouble with getting the kids to eat their veggies? This new animated series follows the adventures of Henry Wiggins ¤ an eight-year-old boy who has amazing powers whenever he eats his Mum's carrots. Henry's insatiable curiousity, coupled with carrot eating, sparks off a series of extraordinary events."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Henry's World to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cunard can you recheck your links? 1, 2, and 4 are all not working. After that I gave up on trying others. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering (talk · contribs), was Internet Archive down at the time you tried accessing them? These links all work for me. If the Internet Archive links do not work, you can also use the "Archived from the original link" part of the sources to access the original links. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Cunard, archived sources loaded for me. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to provide time for input regarding the several new sources provided later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Tyagi

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

non notable person Amitized (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Amitized: You cannot !vote on your own nomination, and this is not a vote. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. I thought I have to specify my vote in the format Shellwood did, hence I added it. Thanks for informing me. Amitized (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP as it passes WP:GNG. There are enough citation in Google news to prove his notability. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:52, 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.
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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trippin'

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

Fails WP:NTV, zero sourcing found. Deprodded because WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Martel, Ned (2005-03-30). "Out saving the planet with celebrity guests". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: ""Trippin" combines school and recess, as Diaz leads celebrity adventurers to wild places in ecological jeopardy. This isn't nature photography à la Jacques Cousteau or Marlin Perkins; instead, the show invites viewers to be part of an eco-entourage. In Nepal, the actress Eva Mendes and the hip-hop star Redman conducted sing-alongs with kids who run an eco-club. Kelly Slater, the pro surfer, shredded waves above the Costa Rican coral reefs before Diaz went scuba diving to examine their intricacies. And in the Yellowstone outback, the singer DMX dropped his gangsta-rap resistance, picked up his discarded cigarette butts and eventually proclaimed, "I like camping!" "Trippin" presents endangered animals in their natural habitats, but it also showcases performers outside theirs. "

    2. Pavao, Kate (2022-02-24). "Trippin'. TV review by Kate Pavao, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "But, while there are some earth-friendly facts flashed across the screen throughout the show, the eco-premise just isn't cohesive enough, so in the end it doesn't seem completely sincere. The celebs arrive at a beautiful spot, learn about a big problem, explore a bit, meet some people, then leave. If they did more work while they were there -- or if Diaz assembled a complete cast of stars who really got into the project -- it would make for a smoother ride."

    3. Pierce, Scott D. (2005-03-28). "Diaz is 'Trippin'". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Cameron Diaz is "Trippin' "— and she assures us it's not just a star trip. She is, however, the star and executive producer of "Trippin'," the new MTV series that's part travelogue, part environmental primer, part extreme challenge — and, yes, part star trip. Beginning tonight at 8:30, Diaz and her celebrity pals travel to various exotic sites, participate in various cool stunts and do their fair share of tree huggin'."

    4. Bentley, Rick (2005-03-28). "Cameron Diaz is trippin' - In her new MTV show, the actress takes celebrities on trips to highlight ecology". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Cameron Diaz won't say where she is. MTV executives are equally as tight-lipped about the location of the film star. All that is certain is she is talking, via satellite, with television critics. She's in a warm climate in a rain forest to produce an episode of her reality television series "Trippin'." No, the name has nothing to do with taking drugs. In the 10-week series, Diaz leads groups of celebrities from the music, sports and acting worlds on trips to remote locations around the globe. The idea of the show is to provide a look at ways to preserve these exotic locations from the onslaught of civilization."

    5. O'Connor, Austin (2005-04-01). "Cameron Diaz is Trippin' -- but the elephant is the star". The Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "It happens that I was watching the premiere episode of Trippin', which chronicles Diaz and her celebrity friends as they travel to exotic parts of the planet and visit environmentally sensitive areas. At the beginning of this week's show, she explained that she would be traveling to Nepal, which, according to her, is one of the only places in the world where crocodiles, elephants, tigers and rhinos live together. Apparently, celebrities don't go to zoos. ... Besides, without Redman's outlandish outbursts, most of Trippin' would consist of watching wild animals poop and listening to Diaz talk about poop. Yes, you read that correctly. In fact, even with Redman, most of the show consists of those things."

    6. Breznican, Anthony (2005-03-25). "Where in the world is Cameron Diaz? - Globe-trotting for MTV and maintaining a low profile in Hollywood". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Trippin' also gives Diaz a chance to show off her notorious klutziness. ... Her Trippin' camera crew captured her sandsurfing in the Atacama Desert of Chile when she slipped off the board and slammed face-first into the dune. ... A look at where the series takes her and her companions:  Actress Eva Mendes, hip-hop star Redman, Blink-182's Mark Hoppus DMX, stunt biker Mat Hoffman, Rebecca Romijn Drew Barrymore, actor Farnsworth Bentley, skater Erik Koston, makeup artist Gucci Westman Costa Rica/Honduras: Kid Rock, Jessica Alba, surf champ Kelly Slater Justin Timberlake, Jimmy Fallon, singer Talib Kweli"

    7. "Trippin'". People. Vol. 63, no. 15. 2005-04-18. ISSN 0093-7673.

      The article notes: "Despite Diaz's admirable goal, Ego-Trippin' might be a better title for her show. On each leg of her journey, she recruits celeb pals such as Jessica Alba, Drew Barrymore and Kid Rock to accompany her. ... we see Diaz blithely dismissing the camera crew so she can shower after a sweaty day of sightseeing (well, she is the executive producer) and learn that tentmate Mendes is arachnophobic."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trippin' to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. After two full relistings, consensus, per input received here and relative to Wikipedia deletion policies, is for the article to be retained. The nominator quoted an opinion essay as a rationale for deletion, which is not a policy or guideline, and stated in the nomination the topic "seems" to fail the opinion essay. The nominator stated that there is a lack of sources and that they couldn't find any, which somewhat qualifies the article for deletion, although a specific notability guideline was not cited. However, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, and not being able to find sources does not equate to automatic non-notability, particularly when a specific notability guideline is not cited affirming qualification of deletion per deletion policies. Sources were provided in the discussion, which essentially nullifies the concept of no sources being found, because several were provided here, hence they have since been findable. However, the nominator did not check back in to the discussion to comment about the sources provided. No other users have opined for deletion, and several have stated that the topic is notable per the sources provided herein. The user that !voted for redirection also did not check back in to provide input about all of the sources provided. North America1000 05:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ & the Fro

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

Deprodded with addition of {{cleanup}} tag, which does not address the lack of sources. Zero sourcing found; therefore, the show seems to fail WP:NTV Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. Invoking an essay as if it's policy/guideline, "X fails WP:ESSAY", is not itself a good rationale, but I say redirect since I can't seem to find anything on Google/Google News that would help substantiate the content of the article or establish notability (particularly WP:GNG. Article is likely to remain a stub of a non-notable TV series.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Croop, Kari (2022-02-24). "DJ & the Fro. TV review by Kari Croop, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The review notes: "DJ & the Fro is slacker television, which means it succeeds in meeting its own low expectations. So is it funny? Well, sometimes, but the laugh factor probably depends on your taste when it comes to humor -- and your age. This show is aimed squarely at the YouTube generation. When it comes to kid apropriateness, DJ & the Fro really isn't, although older teens (and boys, especially) will probably want to watch. And since the show is essentially helping your kids find videos they might have missed on their own YouTube searches, it's just one more source of content you'll have to keep tabs on."

    2. Zahed, Ramin (2009). "Couple of Slackers Watching Clips. MTV's new show DJ & The Fro offers an irresistible compilation of viral videos along with snarky comments by a pair of animated desk slaves". Animation Magazine. Vol. 23, no. 6. p. 20. EBSCOhost 43347175.

      The article notes: "Every generation needs its own versionof Beavis and Butt-head—a couple ofslackers who love to crack wise about the insane video clips of the moment. At least that’s what the creators of MTV’s new summer show DJ & The Fro believe. DaveJeser and Matt Silverstein, the funny duo behind Comedy Central’s hit show DrawnTogether, thought it would be a fun idea to have a couple of YouTube generation commentators. This time around, the dudes are a couple of goofy office drones named DJ and The Fro who love watching video clips during office hours. ... The duo first pitched the premise to FX, but eventually, the show landed on MTV,where the programming execs were hun-gry again for animated content aimed at a young, hip and mostly male audience. ... To produce the animation, the teamtapped Mark Marek, an animator and production designer they had worked with on their show Crank Yankers."

    3. "Cartoon dudes love viral video". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. 2009-06-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "They're the stars of "DJ & the Fro," a new animated series on MTV. Whereas Beavis and Butt-Head pickled their brains via rock videos, DJ and the Fro love passing time at their desk jobs by sneaking peeks at viral videos - often ones of people in the midst of stupid stunts gone awry.On the animated side, our two heroes are less politically correct than Borat, and they delve into lots of genitalia jokes that flesh-and-blood humans couldn't get away with delivering on the boob tube ..."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Schechner, Sam (2010-06-14). "Reality Check: MTV Bets on Scripts". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

        The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "MTV has a checkered track-record with scripted programs in recent years. Most recently, 2009 animated comedy "DJ & the Fro" aired only one season."

      2. Hibberd, James (2009-03-11). "MTV follows script on new laugh track". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The projects include a 20-episode series order for a new animated series titled “DJ and the Fro,” about two office drones who swap viral videos while surrounded by workplace mayhem."

      3. Meningher, Naor; Weinstein, Eytan (2020-03-17). "Episode 186: Coronavirus, Politics and Reality TV (Roy Iddan)". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Roy Iddan is a scriptwriter, he’s created and/or written many Israeli TV shows. Roy was also the production designer for the 2009 MTV show Dj & the Fro."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow DJ & the Fro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, There are multiple sources given that support notability. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Anyone wishing to merge the article is welcome to do so as a normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political ponerology

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

For some background, the article is currently about the concept of "political ponerology" as proposed by Andrzej Łobaczewski in his book Political Ponerology (Polish: Ponerologia polityczna. Nauka o naturze zła w adaptacji do zagadnień politycznych). The book was published by Red Pill Press or Pilule Rouge, a publishing house owned by Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, the leaders of a new religious group named the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind (see here for a list of everyone on the board of directors of the Fellowship, here for proof that most of the directors of the Fellowship are involved in Quantum Future Group, here for proof that Red Pill Press/Pilule Rouge is owned by QFG; in addition, Red Pill Press's homepage shows that most of their books were written by directors of the Fellowship or otherwise related to the Fellowship, as well as having an affiliates list which only list sites affiliated with the Fellowship).

The book itself outlines an alleged phenomenon known as "pathocracy". The ideas presented in this book, however, are a deeply antisemetic, racist, and eugenicist conspiracy theory (this article explains the conspiracy theory in far better detail than I could). The publisher itself is also known for parroting conspiracy theories about Bush and the Mossad committing 9/11 and regularly platforming Aleksandr Dugin, among other things.

The article doesn't mention any of this. In fact, the article promoted the so-called study of "political ponerology" as if it were a legitimate field of study rather than part of a conspiracy theory for over 14 years. The article was initially written by an editor with an undisclosed connection to the Fellowship (see WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_187#User:Poneros) and, before this morning, had only four sources, Two of them were the book itself, one of them was a news outlet named Signs of the Times or Sott.net, which is also owned by the Fellowship, and one of them was pages 37-40 of Kazimierz Dąbrowski's The Dynamics of Concepts, in which Dąbrowski supposedly supported Łobaczewski's assertion that he and other researchers worked together on the book in a secret research group. I managed to track down a copy of the book yesterday and found that the relevant pages did not mention anything to do with Łobaczewski, ponerology, pathocracy, or any sort of secret research group. The closest thing to that within those pages was Dąbrowski talking about negative integration and its connection to psychopathy before talking about positive disintegration. If anyone wants to verify this, we're willing to send a copy of the pages to them.

At this point, I think it'd be best to blow it up and start over, changing the article's subject to be about the book and the spread of its ideas, if we are to have an article about this at all. In its current form, there is nothing worth saving in this article. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - No strong opinion, but some context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Łobaczewski. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that it would make more sense to have an article named after and focused on the book, rather than the "field" named after it. Whether deletion and rewriting or moving and editing is best, I don't know. I'm interested in this book, but much information about it would count as original research. One source missing from Wikipedia has been a 00s video interview with Lobaczewski (the interviewer is Henry See, book co-editor, who later left the cult). I rewrote and maintain the RationalWiki article on the cult leader and cult, and note that the message of the book has been grossly distorted and abused by the cult (and in turn some other alt-right figures). In an (incomplete) essay on Political Ponerology, I give the book and its author the benefit of the doubt, summarize part of it, try to separate its message from that of the cult, and argue that it contains some valuable ideas but not a current science. I welcome further discussion on those topics, including critical, on RationalWiki or in proper places here on Wikipedia. --JoelKP (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if this comes off as rude, but you should probably read the Overland article if you haven't already. It's a conspiracy theory through and through, and quite an antisemetic and racist one at that. It also repeats the "supermale" myth about people with XYY syndrome if I'm remembering correctly. Also the publisher of the original Polish-language version is uh... Oddly obsessed with the "Jewish question". And they also published a Polish translation of Henry Ford's The International Jew. Some company named Ostoja. Similar situation with Vide Editorial who got Brazilian fascist Olavo de Carvalho to write a foreword to it. This book is awful along with the ideas presented in it. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it after seeing the link here, and it's the best critical article I've found so far, and in that way was a surprise. I've been thinking over my essay, which I linked to, and possible changes to it. Some changes are warranted; it already mentioned that Lobaczewski's psychiatry has developed along a different path since the psychiatry of the early 20th century, in some ways remaining outdated, and that bridging that gap is not done in the book; but more can be said about flaws outside outdated views on genes, for example. The most troubling new thing for me to consider is possible links to old Polish far right, which in turn brings a lot more into question. I hadn't come across information about the publisher of the Polish version before, nor (which I saw there) heard of another book being published. Much else about the book and author has seemed to look very different depending on whether you see it as a final product vs. take the idealistic message about future scientific development of a proposed field seriously, and whether or not it's applied to world events in the style of yellow journalism (as both Sott.net and at least one source criticized in the Overland article seem to me to do). --JoelKP (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there was a third book written by him as well, though it's harder to find. Though do you mind elaborating on the "final product vs idealistic message" thing a bit? I'm not quite sure what you mean. ~Opal of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He was apparently also working on some new book he couldn't complete before he passed away (mentioned by Sott). On another topic, the lack of evidence elsewhere for a secret research group, I think that Sott/Fellowship/etc. would have long-since shown anything they had found in their articles, if they had anything to show, so as to boost their message. (I already had the Dabrowski book, from Bill Tillier's positivedisintegration.com, and can confirm that there's nothing there.)
    To elaborate, Political Ponerology contains a good, eloquent pro-science idealism suggesting that no answers are fixed and scientific progress should be the basis for how humanity's problems are solved. That part is very nice in my view, but in the book it accompanies a very mixed bag. I think that some who like the book basically ignore, or regard as historical curiosities, the outdated psychiatric categories and ideas, and mainly find value in the psychological ideas that can be considered together with modern and more varied ideas and views. Such ideas may or may not work out for use in modern theories, but in any case don't have the problems of bigotry and related baggage which the more plainly flawed stuff does. The mixture of things in the book means different things can be made out of it. I do find it weird that Lobaczewski clung so hard to plainly outdated and flawed ideas, though.
    I've updated my own essay, and whether you find something in it useful or not, now I think it has a good-enough criticism to not be misleading (I got a lot out of Glazov's Overland article). --JoelKP (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, you're saying that the book was just on positivedisintegration.com for free the entire time? And we didn't have to watch WorldCat for months just to find a library copy? ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait never mind, I remember why I didn't just use that site. Wasn't sure whether the site's contents matched the book or not. ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not for free, but Tillier maintains an archive, with permission from the copyright holder, of scanned and OCR'ed copies of nearly all of Dabrowski's works. Currently it's $25 for all of it. I got a copy back in 2013. The link to that page doesn't stand out so much on his main page, though.
    As an aside, Tillier was in contact with, but then had a falling out with, some in the Cassiopaea group back in the 00s. They wanted to work with him, but had disagreements about both psychopathy and personality development. He did not find evidence in LKJ's books for her claims of having gone through an advanced personality development. (The reason this is not mentioned in the RW article is that there's no public evidence to link to. It's in a member's area of the Cassiopaea forum.) JoelKP (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Advanced personality development"??? ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The proper Dabrowski term is Level V, or secondary integration. This is, in the teaching of the Cassiopaea group, associated with the esoteric idea of the "second birth", or becoming "man no. 5" in the (unrelated) terms of the teaching of Gurdjieff, which in earlier years was more central to the idea of the group as an "esoteric school". (This stuff is in their public forum.) LKJ claims in her books to have gone through that "second birth". Tillier finds some mystics to show traits described by Dabrowski as corresponding with his higher stages, and that's simply Dabrowskian. But mysticism doesn't make nor break a multilevel person, it just ties into overexcitabilities. The gossipy part is about Tillier looking over LKJ's works and basically dismissing her as just hysterical. JoelKP (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelKP: Ah, I see. I think. ~Tammy of Arctic Circle System (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Ponerology. Some above have noted that the two articles don't really intersect at the current moment, but there are sources that explicitly connect the idea of the applications of this in the political domain to the remainder of ponerology. The book itself is borderline, and the material is not so fringe as to be wholly excluded from the literature (see 1 and 2, each of which cite the book as parts of their literature reviews). Rather than totally removing the article (and deleting associated redirects), and alternative to deletion of merging into the article on Ponerology would allow us to preserve the content that's been covered by RS other than the author. The concept of "pathocracy", which currently redirects to this article (and was more covered in this April 25 version of the article), also itself is covered by a variety of sources, including Psychology Today (1, 2), The Psychologist, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Times Literary Supplement, The Conversation, and Passion killers: The art of passion killing in the age of stress and anxiety. Some of these are sharply critical of the concept of "Pathocracy", but the fact that there is so much coverage shows that there is something GNG-notable here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The crux of our point wasn't that the Political ponerology article needed to be deleted for failing to meet WP:GNG, but rather that it should be deleted per WP:TNT. In its current state, there's nothing worth saving, but the book is notable. I would also like to note that the April 25th version of the article was stripped down because the only source for the "Psychopathology and politics" section was the book itself. ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhawk10: Whoops, forgot to ping. Also sorry if my previous reply seemed rude, I'm not sure if it was rude or not, at least at the beginning. ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arctic Circle System: Per WP:TNT, if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article (emphasis mine). Simply put, that was never the case for this article; its first revision contains content that is useful (i.e. who coined the term, the term's origin, and where the theory originated). As such, the WP:TNT argument holds little weight, since the essay itself does not so much as make the claim that we should delete articles based on their current state. Doing so, of course, is against deletion policy and WP:ATD-E notes that reduction of an article to a stub is actually a perfectly acceptable alternative to deletion. The reason that I advocate for a merge (WP:ATD-M) is that I think the topic of "Political ponerology" could naturally become a child article of "ponerology", but a-la-WP:PAGEDECIDE there are times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. For now, I think merging is the way to go, though an article on the book itself might be worthwhile if someone wants to make that as well. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhawk10: Other than basic details about the book and its author, none of the revisions contained anything particularly useful. But I guess that would be beside the point if we end up deleting to merge it with the ponerology article anyway.
    As for the book being borderline in terms of it being fringe and/or a conspiracy theory, from what I've read of it, the core premise seems to be that a sinister pathological minority, a majority (or at least a plurality) of whom just so happen to be Jews and people of mixed ethnicity who just so happen to follow The Protocols of the Elders of Zion infect societies and governments and destroys them from within as part of a process in which good times cause people to "progressively lose sight of the need for profound reflection, introspection, knowledge of others, and an understanding of life's complicated laws" leading to bad times which "produce experience, good sense, moderation, and a certain amount of psychological knowledge" which in turn lead back to good times. The book also states around the beginning that "The irretrievable disappearance of the second version also meant the loss of the overwhelming majority of statistical data and facts which would have been so valuable and conclusive for specialists in the field." In other words, he didn't have the vast majority of his evidence nor information on where that evidence came from and we're supposed to take him at his word. And to elaborate on the "people of mixed ethnicity" thing, he believed that people of mixed ethnicity are prone to a form of psychopathology known as skirtoidism. He supposedly got this information from Ernst Kretschmer, but there don't seem to be any other records of him expressing such an idea. He also promoted the "supermale" myth about people with XYY syndrome on page 86 of the second edition of the book, albeit not by name. The book itself was published by a cult that claims the Mossad did 9/11, another publishing company known for publishing the works of Brazilian far-right conspiracy theorist Olavo de Carvalho, and a third publishing company which published various antisemetic works, including a Polish translation of Henry Ford's The International Jew. Taking this into consideration, it reads to me like this whole "pathocracy" thing is an ableist, racist, and antisemetic conspiracy theory that was written to sound intellectual enough and appeal to existing biases against people with personality disorders enough that some mainstream sources would uncritically promote its ideas. But perhaps that's just me. I'm also not sure whether I read your post correctly or not, so I apologize if I misread it. That being said, the book, its ideas, and its perception in popular culture is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia, though I cannot say I have a very charitable view of the subject. At this point I'm probably rambling so I'll just cut it off here. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a specialist in how wikipedia works, I usually read it, I'm surprised to have found this entry marked for deletion. Something I personally had never seen in other articles.
I have read the book, and I do not agree with the reasons presented to delete it from wikipedia. Andrew M. Lobaczewski had many problems when he emigrated to the United States, many publishers did not let him publish the book there either, the publisher that published it many years later than he would have wanted, was discarded, since many others did not want to do it.
It is slanderous that there is antisemitic content in the book. People have to read it. There is only one book written by this man as far I know. He is dead since 2008.
There is talk of genetic differences of various races, which within many other factors, cultural, historical, etc. they also intervene in that there are differences regarding the progress of the pathocracy. What are studies from other sources, but the persecution or discrimination of any race or culture is not advocated, anyone who has interpreted that has not read the book.
In any case, it seems to me an error to try to eliminate a content from Wikipedia by judging the author, by judging a small part of the book, which does not affect the general subject at all, because of the whole of the book, which is impressive.
In any case, it seems to me an error to try to eliminate a content from wikipedia by judging the author, by judging a small part of the book, which does not affect the general subject at all, for the whole of the book, which for me personally is impressive and it seems a fundamental work of inspiration and prevention of great disasters. 80.30.19.216 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what's going on. Articles are occasionally marked for deletion for the reasons listed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion or WP:TNT (this is not an exhaustive list, though I think it's close). This is a normal part of Wikipedia's editorial process. We have no desire to eliminate coverage of the book from Wikipedia because we find its contents objectionable, and I don't think JoelKP or Mhawk10 want that either.
The reason why we're trying to get this article deleted is because from its inception it has been plagued with issues. For one thing, it was initially created by someone with an undisclosed connection to the publisher of the English, Spanish, French, Russian, German, and Dutch translations of the book (see here) who added disinformation to the article (see above). In addition, the article greatly misrepresented the subject it was covering, failing to follow WP:NPOV guidelines. It treated the ideas presented in Łobaczewski's book as if they were proven facts, omitting any and all criticism of the book, its publishers, and others who popularized his ideas. In addition, we feel that it would be more appropriate for the article to be about Political Ponerology the book rather than political ponerology the concept, as it would enable better coverage of the book, its author, its publishers, and the spread of its ideas. And as such, we feel the best way to facilitate better coverage of the subject is to delete the current incarnation of the article and rewrite it from scratch.
There is also no evidence to suggest that either Łobaczewski's or Laura Knight-Jadczyk's account of his difficulties publishing the book over the years are true. Same with his assertion that he was part of a secret research group in the first place. I should also mention that he wrote two other books, but they are not particularly relevant to this subject and they have never been published in any language other than Polish.
As for your assertion that it is slanderous to suggest that the book and its author are antisemetic, this article written by Ramon Glazov breaks explains the racism and antisemitism within the book as well as other antisemetic remarks made by its author, and criticizes the book's core ideas as well. In addition, the book has been published by a rogues' gallery of antisemetic conspiracy theorists, including Ostoja Publishing House, which publishes works in support of Polish nationalism including a Polish translation of Henry Ford's The International Jew, Vide Editorial, which is known for publishing works written by far-right conspiracy theorist Olavo de Carvalho, and Red Pill Press, which is run by a cult which claims that the Mossad did 9/11. Given all of this, I believe there is enough evidence to put forth the suggestion that the book and its ideas are antisemetic.
As for you, I would advise against adding paragraphs of unsourced information to the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. ~Tammy of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I drop the matter, my general incompetence over who administers this, the rules and all, puts me at a serious disadvantage. I see that the judgment of antisemitism is by association, and association with association, and association with association. It is a forced argument to discredit a person. But none of that serves as a justification for judging an author who has nothing to do with anti-Semitic positions. I think all of this reminds me of this, the topic of Goldin's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I will continue defending the work of Andrzej M. Łobaczewski, because to me personally it seems transcendental to explain the great misfortunes of the present times. And an issue, that of psychopathy in society, which should be studied more seriously. 80.30.19.216 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he regularly said stuff like "I did not know, and nobody in Poland realized, just how much influence the "security apparatus" [Sluzba Bezpieczenstwa (SB) or State Security Service], with the help of Jews, had on Polish emigrants living abroad." in interviews as well. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the entire book of this deceased psychiatrist, and none of that appears. Source? Link that interview.
The book is legally free here: https://archive.org/details/political-ponerology/page/30/mode/2up
So it's easy to check.
Next I am going to leave all the fragments of the book where the three letter word j+e+w appears, isolated or inside an other word. That word appears 7 times in the entire book of 105762 words. 2 times is the publisher, not the author. 1 time is an index.
1. Page 38 "[...]If a collection were to be made of all those books which describes the horrors of wars, the cruelties of revolutions, and the bloody deeds of political leaders and their systems, many readers would avoid such a library. Ancient works would be placed alongside books by contemporary historians and reporters.The documentary treatises on German extermination and concentration camps, and of the extermination of the Jewish Nation, furnish approximate statistical data and describe the well organized “labor” of the destruction of human life, using a properly calm language, and providing a concrete basis for the acknowledgment of the nature of evil. The autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, the commander of camps in Oswiecim (Auschwitz) and Brzezinka (Birkenau), is a classic example of how an intelligent psychopathic individual with a deficit of human emotion thinks and feels[...]"
2. Page 112. Editor's note (It's not Andrew Lobaczeski) "[...]Vassily Grossman was a Soviet citizen, a Ukrainian Jew born in 1905. A Communist, he became a war correspondent, working for the army paper Red Star - a job which took him to the front lines of Stalingrad and ultimately to Berlin. He was among the first to see the results of the death camps, and published the first account of a death camp - Treblinka - in any language. After the war, he seems to have lost his faith in him. He wrote his immense novel, Life and Fate (Zhizn i Sudba) in the 1950s and - in the period of the Krush-chev thaw, which had seen Alexander Solzhenitsyn allowed to publish A Day on the Life of Ivan Denisovich - he submitted the manuscript to a literary journal in 1960 for publication. But Solzhenitsyn was one thing, Grossman another: his manuscript was confiscated, as were the sheets of carbon paper and typewriter ribbons he had used to write it. Suslov, the Politbureau member in charge of ideology, is reported as having said it could not be published for 200 years. However, it was smuggled out on microfilm to the west by Vladimir Voinovich, and published, first in France in 1980, then in English in 1985. Why the 200 year ban? Because Life and Fate commits what was still, in a ‘liberal’ environment, the unthinkable sin of arguing for the moral equivalence of Nazism and Soviet communism.[Editor's note][...]
3. Page 124 [...]Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, especially when the schizoids embitter other people's lives. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid's failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses. The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people. The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3%. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7% of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary. A schizoid's ponenological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponenogenic role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions. In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors' characters are really like. Ignorant of the true condition of the author, such uninformed readers thed to interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of nnormal people tend toward corrective interpretation due to the participation of their own richer, psychological world view.[...]
4 and 5. Page 186 [...] The conviction that Karl Marx is the best example of this is correct as he was the best-known figure of that kind. Frostig 91, a psychiatrist of the old school, included Engels and others into a category he called “bearded schizoidal fanatics”. The famous writings attributed to “Zionist Wise Men” at the turn of the century begin with a typically schizoidal declaration.92 The nineteenth century, especially its latter half, appears to have been a time of exceptional activity on the part of schizoidal individuals, often but not always of Jewish descent. After all we have to remember that 97% of all Jews do not manifest this anomaly, and that it also appears among all European nations, albeit to a markedly lesser extent. Our inheritance from this period includes world-images, scientific traditions, and legal concepts flavored with the shoddy ingredients of a schizoidal apprehension of reality. Humanists are prepared to understand that era and its legacy within categories characterized by their own traditions. They search for societal, ideational, and moral causes for known phenomena. Such an explanation, however, can never constitute the whole truth, since it ignores the biological factors which participated in the genesis of the phenomena. Schizoidia is the most frequent factor, albeit not the only one.[...]
6. Page 186 Editor's note (It's not Andrew Lobaczeski) "The “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is now well known to have been a hoaxed attribution to Jews. However, the contents of the Protocols are clearly not “hoaxed ideas” since a reasonable assessment of the events in the United States over the past 50 years or so gives ample evidence of the application of these Protocols in order to bring about the current Neocon administration. Anyone who wishes to understand what has happened in the U.S. only needs to read the Protocols to understand that some group of deviant individuals took them to heart. The document, “Project For A New American Century”, produced by the Neoconservatives reads as if it had been inspired by the Protocols. [Editor's note.]"
7. Page 327. Index. "[...]How interpreted by normal person, 186 Pathological acceptance of, 187 Three reactions to, 187 Schizoida, 214, 223 Schizoidia, 123, 137, 186, 188 And Jews, 186 Impose conceptual views on others, 185 Schizophrenia, 123, 124, 165,167[...]"
End 80.30.19.216 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article it has a link to the interview. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 22:26, 24 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 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rondo Energy

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

WP:SERIESA. Notability is very far from established. Overall, this is either WP:GNG non-compliant, or WP:NOTYET. In either case, this right now is a vanity article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:GNG, I would consider notable coverage to include the Verge and TechCrunch sources, established publications that report on climate technologies and startup companies. There is additional notable coverage in other established publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, which can be used here as a source in addition, or instead, or existing sources. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful for the opportunity to prepare an updated draft for you or another neutral editor, utilizing additional notable sources and ensuring the article is neutral, drawing only from notable public coverage and secondary sources. There is an emerging market for this new climate technology category -- of which Rondo is one of several notable companies. These new technologies (not uniquely Rondo's) are a matter of public interest and receiving notable coverage. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You appear to have an incomplete understanding of our guidelines and policies. The appropriate guideline for a company/organization is WP:NCORP which includes criteria such as those found in the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections for establishing notability. HighKing++ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article created by a connected contributor describing the background and proposition of a start-up company. Inclusion in lists of promising start-ups and funding announcements are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Justine Calma's article in The Verge and John Cox's article about prototype trials are probably the nearest to WP:RS coverage, but are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. here. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks AllyD, I would also assert that Ed Ballard's coverage in the Wall Street Journal would be considered WP:RS coverage on Rondo's page or others, as well as the Fast Company World Changing Ideas award by the Fast Company editorial board. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The connected contributor has been forthcoming, and not tried to hide their connection. The question of notability is a matter of interpretation meaning that it is far from being an absolutely clear cut case of failed notability. The prudent thing to do is keep and improve as needed. Huggums537 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WSJ & Verge pieces are mostly based off company sources, with the independent text mostly talking about the industry in general or competitors, so they would fail WP:ORGIND. The TechCrunch article actually has a bit of independent doubts in the last paragraph, but WP:TECHCRUNCH is not a good source to establish notability. I don't think there is enough here to meet WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 08:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Far from it being a "matter of interpretation", WP:NCORP guidelines can be summarised as requiring multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage (in reliable sources) 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria (all rely entirely on info from the company and their execs with no "Independent Content") and I can't find any that does. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I took a look at the WSJ coverage and it's just a founder interview, so fails the independence criterion. I disagree with User:Huggums537 - the criteria are a bright line, and this company doesn't meet it. The connected contributor is why this article on a non-notable company exists, and the direct editing is inappropriate per our COI guidelines, but we don't delete articles to punish people. This article should be deleted because the company (the company, not the industry) does not meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 03:30, 4 June 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. North America1000 00:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernestine Fu

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

Doesn't meet notability. Could use expansion, but otherwise the only thing notable about this person was appearing on Forbes 30 Under 30 a decade ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswix (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:55, 12 May 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, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A one-time media blitz for a student entrepreneur does not add up to long-term notability, and her subsequent career as a capitalist and part-time academic does not appear notable at all, neither under WP:GNG for the business work nor under WP:PROF for the academic side. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The first block of refs seems to be mostly alumni news but no real secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 12:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She appears generally notable per references such as the Vanity Fair article and others. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 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 majority of the keep votes seem to be citing non policy based reasons for keeping and the sourcing has not been shown to be sufficient. Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Nixon

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

Fails WP:GNG, only trivial mentions across all sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Northern Ireland. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not fail WP:GNG, the person is a European Champion, which is pretty significant bearing in mind that she is a champion of an entire continent within his sport. She also competed in the Commonwealth Games and the World Championships. (Furthermore it is a stub). The sources include the Commonwealth Games Federation, the BBC and Bowls Europe. I cannot understand why the article has been proposed for deletion. Pipesmoking Legend (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG clearly asks for significant coverage. Where is this? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My searching finds nothing helpful to satisfy WP:GNG. Sports specific notability has nothing about lawn bowling and being a European Champion, while significant, seems not to generate significant coverage. Happy to reconsider if better sources are identified. Gab4gab (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. European and British champion in her sport would appear to equate to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at sports notability I do find some sports where European or British championships would suggest notability, but not for lawn bowling and not in general for any sport. Gab4gab (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In general we have held that people who have won a national championship title of a major country in any sport are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSPORTS says, for some sports, that winning a particular championship indicates sufficient coverage is likely to exist. So it's quite a leap to have extended that guidance to any sport in your past decisions. However things do change and a recent Sports notability request for comment was closed with consensus to require at least one source with significant coverage in a sports biography. This article has no sources with significant coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Coverage is too insignificant. >>> Extorc.talk 06:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pipesmoking Legend and Necrothesp, and WP:NSPORTS. Even if there is minor coverage across all sources, the combined coverage of all sources is quite significant, and the athlete is a champion. Huggums537 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the following source assessment table, there is no significant coverage, despite WP:GNG requiring multiple, and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 requiring deletion if no significant coverage can be found.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://g2014results.thecgf.com/athlete/cycling_road/1023633/katie_nixon.html Yes ? No Stats only ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/sport/bowls/35916450 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://bowlseurope.com/ebu-team-championships-2011/ Yes ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://britishislesbowls.com/history-of-the-bibc/previous-winners/ ? ? No Stats only ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/sport/commonwealth-games/28574558 Yes Yes No Limited to a brief statistical summary of her teams participation in the quarter finals of the commonwealth games ✘ No
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13287432.england-piped-to-top-bowls-prize/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
BilledMammal (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nixon is an athlete who has received coverage multiple times in national news media such as the BBC. The most substantive BBC article covering Nixon is this one. In sum, I agree with the "keep" side here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scores of their matches and that they were disappointed is significant coverage? That's a low bar. The included comments by Greechan and Nixon are not independent coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 13:06, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo: Bukkazoom!

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

There seems to be little coverage. Redirect to List of Hugo video games should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Truly a gaming masterpiece on par with BioShock... anyway, Mobygames says it got at least 3 reviews from reliable sources - Absolute Games, JeuxVideo and PC Games (Germany). That combined with the Official Nintendo Magazine review demonstrates that it passes WP:GNG beyond a shadow of a doubt and should not be zooming towards deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Entry in a notable franchise, which itself got enough coverage to be notable. Merko (talk) 09:59, 22 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 12:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lui e lei (TV series)

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

Not a proper WP entry. Regardless of notability, this fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This concern has been answered to the fullest over there. Also here, I'm striking through the part of the intro based on which the other discussion was sidetracked. After the discussion was back on the rails, the other article was deleted. As the closing editor put it: "No compelling case for notability has been made". Applies here as well. In fact, there is a consensus here to delete. gidonb (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 12 May 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, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the Tuvalu Games

AfDs for this article:
Football at the Tuvalu Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and per Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

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. Some contributors may be unaware that WP:NFOOTBALL has been revoked, as such these arguments are deemed invalid and delete prevails. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imo Fiamalua

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to President of Ukraine. The content is available under the redirect for anyone desirous of merging. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since the President is ex officio the supreme commander-in-chief by virtue of Article 106(17) of the Constitution, is there a need for this article? For instance, just as the President of the US is the CinC ex officio of the US Armed Forces, it is enumerated as a power of the President rather than a separate act. This should be merged into President of Ukraine. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge into President of Ukraine. Though I made it a different article on the basis of Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces being a separate article itself (as well as Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine being an article on Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias), moving this article into President of Ukraine is a better idea that, to be quite honest, didn't cross my mind. As the creator/sole editor of the article, I'll proceed with moving it into the article of President of Ukraine. Mupper-san (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I have initiated the same process with respect to that article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into President of Ukraine. Not as useful as a stand-alone article could be useful for merging. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 04:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maison du Patrimoine en Brocéliande

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

Same as French article, dead links, WP:N Happyecheveria (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aqualung (software)

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

Non-notable software. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find anything Rlink2 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Here's a source providing relatively significant coverage from Opensource.com, which is published by Red Hat:
– Adding a refined search parameter below. North America1000 03:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn per improvements. Although I didn't explicitly say so earlier, I am also retracting my "delete", meaning there is no longer any reason to keep this open. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag waver

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP with the following rationale

A strange page that seems to be something of a cross between a DAB page and an article. In recent years this has been trimmed down to make it function more like a disambiguation page, but all of the entries are invalid because they fail WP:DABMENTION - only one of the linked pages mention Flag wavers and that's in an external link. Going back through the page history it becomes clear that this page used to have more article like content [40], but this is just a WP:DICDEF, a page that lists off a couple of definitions of the phrase. This page doesn't work as a DAB page and doesn't work as an article, so I think it should be deleted.) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Highly unlikely search term, even with the new entries it still would not be sufficient. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 16:45, 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 00:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week keep. I've replaced all the (bad) existing entries and scraped together three four legit ones (plus a wiktionary link). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do Clarityfiend's edits change your mind, @Qwaiiplayer, Cranloa12n, TenPoundHammer, and Mythdon:?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe No, they do not. I reaffirm my Delete. Given other editors have recently changed their votes, I no long reaffirm my Delete, and support a Keep status. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 00:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (IP who wrote the nom statment) I would support keeping the dab page in its current form, it has been much improved since I nominated it and now contains multiple entries that actually meet the criteria for inclusion on a DAB page. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above rationalle and page improvements I withdraw the nomination. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 03:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrDoctor

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

None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. The references all rely on company announcements or PR. HighKing++ 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and United Kingdom. HighKing++ 12:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of coverage in independent sources. Coverage of most companies is based on company announcements. Its a significant player in the British NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. Certainly "plenty of coverage" is not part of the criteria, especially (as you've admitted) is based on company announcements. HighKing++ 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is independent content in the HSJ coverage and in the stuff from NHS trusts. Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You won't get your point across without at least linking to the "coverage" and at least referring to (or even better, pointing to the para number which contains) the "Independent Content" within those references. Also, the "Independent Content" must pass CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV. Can you do that? HighKing++ 10:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for your claim of "independent content" - did you not even notice the "Written by DrDoctor" graphic on the articles? HighKing++ 13:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are plenty of independent sources. I will leave it to Rathfelder to choose some. Oculi (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question is whether there is coverage. Not whether its in the article. The HSJ coverage is in considerable depth. Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The HSJ articles have a big hard-to-miss graphic entitled "Written by DrDoctor" on them. Not independent. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not this one: [41] Rathfelder (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but that particular article discusses scrapping follow-up appointments and PIFU Pathways and asks the CEO, Tom Whicher, for his views. This is neither significant (fails SIGCOV) nor contains in-depth information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH) nor has any "Independent Content" (fails ORGIND) since it blindly reprints everything the CEO has to say and nothing more. Was there any particular part of that article that you believe met NCORP? Did you read the article (after all, it is behind a paywall)? HighKing++ 21:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are misrepresenting the Health Service Journal report. They are examining the company's claims critically and comparing what they say with the views of NHS managers. Its significant because follow-up appointments and PIFU Pathways are the main claim of notability of the company and very significant in the impact of technology on the NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean that the article/journalist is "examining the company's claims critically"? The journalist simply prints what the topic company says and reprints what everyone else that has been quoted says. Where's the critical analysis? Where's the WP:ORGIND "Independent Content"? Point me to a paragraph? But even if we were to agree to disagree on that point, where's the in-depth analysis of the topic company which is required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH? The WP:SIRS section of NCORP clearly states that an article must fulfill all the criteria in order to be counted towards notability criteria. HighKing++ 11:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of independent coverage and this organisation is important to coverage of the NHS. Bigwig7 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Bigwig7, saying that the "organisation is important" isn't a reason to Keep in our NCORP guideline, that's just an opinion. You say there's plenty of "independent coverage" - that might be a reason to keep but you haven't provided any links and references must meet NCORP. Please provide some links. HighKing++ 13:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:SOURCESEXIST is a weak argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balto-Slavic swastika

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

The article was created as a joke. Among the obvious violations: incorrect indication of pages in the sources, original research, etc. In addition, the article copies text from other articles. Noraskulk (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I also see these numerous violations, see the notes to the links in the article. -- Nikolay Omonov (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_12&oldid=1087459605"