Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 22: 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/Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoor Pari}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoor Pari}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Nanetti (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Nanetti (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 02:14, 22 May 2024

< May 21 May 23 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk

Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk (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)

Failed PROD, dePRODded because Google isn't through enough for a BEFORE check. Unfortunately, I don't have access to other sources, and this article isn't easily redirected. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Can somebody check Swedish media for notability? Given that the Swedish page for the article lacks sources, I'm doubtful, but it could breathe life into this article. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a tad difficult to get a good overview of sources from things released in 1999, since the archives tend to be less reliable. Nevertheless, this tour seems to have been one of the most signficant of the year. It got an award from one of the biggest Swedish newspapers, it was talked about as "the best tour" and so on. I've tried to expand the article: The singular focus on the album doesn't make sense to me, when the album was a product of an acclaimed tour. My access to sources of the time is not good enough to split them into two separate articles; they belong together. The article also lacked information about the band, which, yet again, might not work as well in a separate article, but should be briefly explained together with the tour and the album. I've expanded the article somewhat and added sources. /Julle (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Finland from the deletion sorting. Seems to have been added my mistake instead of Sweden? Don't see the Finnish connection, but please undo my edit if I'm mistaken. /Julle (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's quite some significant coverage of the tour, the article should probably be expanded to talk more about the tour/band as the main topic like Julle said, the album seems like it would work better as a section to that article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we have an assessment of available sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 29 May 2024 (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 A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoor Pari

Hoor Pari (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 22 May 2024 (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. Consensus among participants who took the trouble to carefully analyze the sources seems clear. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti

AfDs for this article:
Christian Nanetti (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 footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Complex/Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, All many the sources from a variety of newspapers/news portals above are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider The Sun reliable for anything. GiantSnowman 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Even besides that, my other points still stand. Put together, even without the "tabloid newspapers", all the other sources from the newspapers and news portals like Gianlucadimzarzio show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your sources prior to my !vote and nothing has changed my mind since. GiantSnowman 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the heavily-interview-based sources noted above are enough for GNG. Tabloids and other deprecated sources obviously are unacceptable in BLPs and should be removed on-sight. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is most certainly not reliable for BLPs, which require high-quality sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2024 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s

NASCAR on television in the 2010s (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Rohr

AfDs for this article:
Nadine Rohr (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)

Couldn't find any reliable source on the subject. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Shinadamina (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (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. There seems to be a consensus to delete or draftify the article. Given that it is unlikely anybody will come around to improve the article (given the creator's indefinite block), my sense is that draftifying the article will just result in an abandoned draft. If the creator would like a copy of the article, I would be happy to provide it at any time. Malinaccier (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Srinivasa Rao

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

I do not think that this person meets the criteria for notability. I have been unable to find any reference to him other than the The Hindu article (https://web.archive.org/web/20240317044514/https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/history-and-culture/the-lawyer-as-a-writer/article4683660.ece), which just effectively said it was nice to read. And cryptic metadata from library websites who happen to have the book (which seems to just be stanford and nyu https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000071311 ) Mason (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe you are confusing notability and verifiability. Just because a source is hard to find doesn't mean it isn't reliable. See WP:PAYWALL. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I used my university's library to see if I could find anything else on the subject. My comment on cryptic meta data was that that was literally the only additional information I could find about him. I am not rejecting the source, for being difficult to get access to. My point was that there was literately nothing else when I searched other than that metadata. Typically for someone to meet notability they have to be covered by multiple sources. And, I can't find any support for independent coverage. The book in question wasn't even something he published. The book was edited by another person long after his death. Mason (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Will respond more at bottom. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage on the subject in the sources which are also poor. Subject does not meet basic criteria to be considered notable due to insignificant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this criteria can be met, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet and is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, this article is not eligible for CSD G5. You've made this kind of comment several times which is a mistaken interpretation of G5. Please review WP:CSD carefully. G5 is for block evasion, not simply for being the work of a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I striked my comment. Is it right though that "when a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5"? WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see an SPI on 21 March and this article was created 19 March. Blocks were in April. Perhaps I'm misreading or missing something? Oblivy (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 does not apply to the initial accounts that are blocked for socking if they are not evading a block at that point. It only applies to the articles created by accounts that come after the initial case/block.
In this case, both the accounts were used simultaneously and neither of them had an active block. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Just FYI, a general comment for all AFDs, when an editor says "seems like" or "likely" or "appears to be" it means to me that the editor hasn't read or seen the sources and are basing their opinion on attributes like the title or the publisher. If that's the case, it's good not to have an absolutist opinion on what should happen with an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I am right down the middle on this. This guy seems to have been a prominent barrister, wrote a number of books including a treatise on administrative law. Maybe also wrote about temples (not sure if it's the same author).
But I've tried to find the sources, and don't find anything substantial about him except for the two links on the page, and as @Smasongarrison points out above that's a book by him, or perhaps comprising judgments curated by him. And one The Hindu journalist who liked his book.
Complaints about the origin of the article are, subject to further developments, misplaced. The author seems to have a particular interest[12] in Calamur.
If, on chance, there is someone out there who can improve this article let them do it. It will not be me. There's a conversation over unblocking going on so perhaps @Hölderlin2019 will live to edit another day. Oblivy (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be onboard with draftifying. If he were in my subject area, I'd inter-library loan the book. Maybe someone will be so motivated. Mason (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Hindu source is fine, but it's one source. I don't find anything in Gscholar or Books, there are some papers he's written on various aspects of the law, but these don't affect notability here. I think there could be more sourcing in the local language, but I can't locate any. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2024 (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. Discarding canvassed votes and views not based on P&G, there is rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Muqtadir

AfDs for this article:
Salman Muqtadir (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)

Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 21 June 2024 (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. Strong arguments on both sides. But after more than five weeks, consensus failed to materialize. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Large

Cullen Large (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 Joeykai (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very easy keep. This biography clears GNG and NSPORTS by more than a lot of sports bios I've seen here. There is WP:SIGCOV in The Province, Baseball America, and Sportsnet, all of which are WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Sportsnet is owned by Rogers Communications, which also owns the Toronto Blue Jays, the organization that had Large at the time that article was written. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 20:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The three sources given by Dclemens1971 are reliable, independent of the article subject, and provide significant coverage. My understanding is that Sportsnet's news staff have editorial independence from the Blue Jays themselves, despite common ownership, so I believe that source is sufficiently independent to contribute towards notability. Even if that source weren't included, we'd have two sources that meet WP:SIGCOV, which is enough to meet WP:GNG's requirement that there be multiple such RS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:31, 29 June 2024 (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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Neil Fitzwiliam

Neil Fitzwiliam (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 significant coverage and not enough major roles. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 29 May 2024 (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/2024_May_22&oldid=1225054022"