Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 19	May 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën India

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

Could have been a redirect to the parent company but non-notable on their own. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Created by a potential WP:SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject does not become less notable if the concerning article was created by an SPA. If Ford India can have article then why not this? I will be checking for sources soon. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently notable, having received coverage in multiple reliable sources for several years.[1][2][3][4][5] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References in the article are routine launch/corporate announcements or insubstantial news which do not rise above the WP:NCORP bar. The links dumped above are also similar. Hemantha (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per this recent source, as well as some sources already cited above, also little absurd to delete a page from top 10 car manufacturer activity in India Shrikanthv (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Citroen is part of the Stellantis Group, I cannot identify any information in that article worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Every single sentence in it is attributed to company insiders and is full of buzzwords that mean nothing. I suggest a re-read of NCORP if you consider that to meet it. Hemantha (talk) 10:32, 25 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, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 5 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Registro de Identidade Civil

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

Project for a new Brazilian eID card that has been suspended for over a decade Mooonswimmer 16:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiscussingFilm Critics Awards

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

The current article cites AwardsWatch and Next Best Picture, which cover film awards indiscriminately and therefore do not appear to constitute significant coverage (see also this discussion). No other secondary coverage from reliable sources (Variety, THR, etc.) has been found. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to leave a comment as article creator, as I don't think the nom comment gives the full picture (obviously?).
I made this as a stub after the subject (awards) had been mentioned/included on lots of film, actor, and list of award articles - that is, the general advice is to not include awards in lists if they do not have a Wikipedia article unless there is good third party coverage, and the forming consensus seemed to be that these awards do have the right level of notability even without an article. As the third edition then had an actual presentation, not just online, I thought the article was a reasonable creation.
The nom mentions AwardsWatch and NBP by saying they give indiscriminate coverage, which isn't exactly true, but besides, I don't think they say things along the line of "these awards have been minor but will prove more influential on the season" about everything. The specific coverage should be considered.
This treads towards OTHERSTUFF but, seriously, have you seen the number of minor Indian film award articles that are just unsourced lists? This article doesn't pretend to be more than it is, that shouldn't be a reason to delete coverage of legitimate awards before cleaning up the articles on every production company in Bollywood giving themselves meaningless awards. Imho. Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the award was included in lots of lists because inexperienced editors just copy all of the awards from IMDb (which is an indiscriminate and unreliable source) and make a list, not because the awards are deemed to be significant. The same thing happens with awards from, for example, Gold Derby; even though those awards are not considered notable (see this 2020 AfD), they are often added to awards lists by editors. And the note that these specific awards will "make an even deeper impact" is copied straight from the organization's website – in fact, that entire paragraph in the NBP article is copied from the org's website – so I don't think that's reasonable analysis of the organization. If anything, it casts further doubt on the ability of NBP to provide secondary coverage. Regarding the unsourced Indian film awards, I'm sure there are issues there, and I would be more than happy to move for their deletion if there are similar issues, but those aren't relevant to this discussion, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any independent source about the awards or the organization, just lists of winners and nominees, which do not constitute significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 23:05, 6 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 Draftify while it's unclear whether Dedovic will attain notability, I'm willing to give it time to incubate. Star Mississippi 02:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edhem Dedovic

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

this is a WP:BLP1E - I don't see any coverage of Dedovic beyond the single instances of being airlifted/rescued with injuries and don't see otherwise how he would be notable and WP:VICTIM (sorta) applies and it doesn't appear he had any significant role in the event itself. I dare say millions of people, children included survive war and aren't notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E applies here to a significant extent. I am willing to change my mind if additional evidence is adduced as to notability.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am thinking about taking the article back to the draftspace, and keep working on it. Will link to this discussion on its Talk page TransGobbledygook (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I don't think this article is very promising but I think the page creator should be allowed to work on it in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Hampton

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

The actress probably doesn't meet the notability requirements for actors. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:36, 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 15:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough acceptable sources to pass and subject does meet NACTOR. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How so? A lot of the roles are minor. Plus the articles are not substantive.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20120321162014/http://www.holby.tv/news/present-news/item/420-fiona-hampton-joins-holby
Looks like a blog.
- https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/jul/19/a-midsummers-night-dream-review-trevor-nunn-ipswich
Is a review on the play itself.
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w0bgl#synopsis
Is just the show listing. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NACTORS doesn't apply to a subject's overall career. Whether they're 'minor' or major, they pass. Nate • (chatter) 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3)"

None of her roles are particularly significant or I doubt she had made several unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to the entertainment fields. So she fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. Google reveals no WP:SIGCOV that establishes notability. IrishOsita (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NACTOR* IrishOsita (talk) 23:15, 10 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 keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merrion Gates

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

The article has limited notability for inclusion on Wikipedia - level crossings do not normally warrant their own articles. Perhaps the article could be renamed/merged/moved to refer to the surrounding area instead, as suggested in the lead paragraph...

Other comments welcome as I know the notability (or lack of) has been discussed before. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ireland. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I completely understand the rationale for the nomination (and certainly railway crossings wouldn't normally warrant their own article), the subject here is a little more than "just" a level crossing. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, granted most of the coverage relates to the "notorious" nature of the bottleneck (and plans to address that), but there is a chunk of coverage which deals with the subject as a titular/primary topic. (Irish Times: [6][7][8]. Irish Independent: [9][10]. Etc). In terms of WP:GEOFEAT, while not a protected structure or similar, the subject likely taps the "historic, social importance" criteria. In that it is described in several sources as marking the "boundary of the city of Dublin" and "symbolic entry point to the inner city" (EG: [11][12]). To the extent that visiting or returning notables were often greeted at these gates. Like papal legate Cardinal Lorenzo Lauri in 1932. Or the reception held here for Éamon de Valera on his return to Ireland in 1919. If there is consensus for a merge, then I'm not sure what target to suggest. Perhaps the Merrion railway station article. Which is immediately nearby. However, IMO and while stations are perhaps more conventionally afforded their own articles, the junction has been the subject of way more coverage than the station....) Guliolopez (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find Guliolopez's argument persuasive. CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez:, @CT55555: - if Merrion railway station is nearby, perhaps that may be a suitable place to merge? Clearly it seems to be a level crossing with information about it - but I don't think the level crossing is necessarily notable enough in its own right. Would you be in favour of merging it with Merrion? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the rater tool, which rated this as a C-class article. Why would you want to merge it, why not just leave it as it is? Or improve it? CT55555 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG. The topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more participation for a fair decision
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriately referenced, meets general notability guidelines. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:09, 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. ✗plicit 00:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islem Chikhi

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

Article about non-notable footballer who apparently was under contract to an Algerian first division club (Paradou) in the past, but I can't find support that he ever played in a competitive match for the club, and the article fails WP:GNG. All online coverage in English-, Arabic- and French-language sources is trivial (i.e., database entries). Jogurney (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Jogurney: - what's the Arabic version of his name? I'd like to have a look. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Arabic-language wiki, it is: ايسليم كيخى Jogurney (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything useful from the Arabic name above. Couldn't find much searching in Latin script. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 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 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 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naesketchie

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

might be too soon, i dunno but the billboard article was surprising in that it appears to be nothing more than PR spam about Naesketchie and I'm surprised it was published. The rest are PR pieces from paid outlets/contributors/interviews. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 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 15:28, 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 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 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfoa Asamoah

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, lack of WP:SIGCOV, possibly WP:NOTYET? Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage as it fails to show WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 2 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 source analysis has been very compelling and addresses the relevant policy NCORP and the keep votes are either assertions, not based on policy, reflecting the wromg policy GNG or, in the case of the single vote providing sources, successfully challenged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G-Aerosports

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

I removed the speedy tag because there is a claim that new information has come up from the original deletion over four years ago. It still looks to me like there could be a WP:COI and the subject may not meet WP:GNG or another notability guideline. I'm unconvinced that the sources are independent and enough to meet the notability standards. I believe the article should be deleted but let's have a discussion first. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The sources, listed as "External links/References", are a few photos, a couple of YT videos and an e-book written by (as it appears) the user who created the article (this is an indication of COI, too; please, note that yesterday the same user created the Greek WP article as well). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate manufacturer, which, in the meanwhile, has introduced new models and has an agreement for production under license in Canada - definately incrasing its notability. Please do note that there are hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia - there are even articles for makers of a single test sporting aircraft or a single vehicle. I see no reson why such articles should be deleted.Skartsis (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skartsis "Legitimate manufacturer" has nothing to do with notability; it could have been illegal and notable. The "hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia" is an argument to avoid: the existence of other articles that their subject may lack notability doesn't justify keeping this article. To me the creation of this article by you looks like a product of WP:COI, it has to do with listing you e-book as a source. I might be wrong, but that was the first thing that crossed my mind when you created the Greek article (now deleted). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skartsis Also, if notability is met there's still the potential WP:COI issues that would be reason for removal of the article. I applaud your enthusiasm--do you have anything for us to consider about WP:COI?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19 and Paul McDonald I removed reference to my book (this was added only to provide additional reference, makes no difference to me - you may have seen that now it is an open access eBook on Academia). Also, I personally asked the manufacturer (through the e-mail in its website) to provide written permission for the images, as demanded by an editor. Was this that lead to the claim of "suspected connection"? You may as well delete the article, if you still believe so. Of course, I will repeat that this approach could lead to the deletion of a big part of Wikipedia. Regarding similar makers, random examples are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzavia_GAK-22_Dino (a single ultralight aircraft made) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_EDA_100_Flamingo (incomplete development of an ultralight aircraft). I will not argue further, and respect any decision. Skartsis (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I just added six new RS, including one from a reliable Spanish aviation magazine, one from HuffPo.gr, and another from newsbomb.gr. Now the citations are 10. Ten citations are a lot of citations. What's more, the coverage is persistent and spans from 2011 up to 2022, indicating lasting notability. This company has created a stealth kit aeroplane which is quite popular and notable. One of its founders is a retired policeman with no aviation experience. I will try to expand the article whenever I get some time. This is a very interesting and notable company. I will close by noting that Mr. Skartsis has no COI. His book is freely available online. He doesn't stand to profit from this endeavour. In fact, Mr. Skartsis has resuscitated the knowledge base of the old industrial base of Greece by creating articles on en.wiki. His multitude of Greek automobile and industrial articles on en.wiki is a testament to his extensive knowledge, experience, and dedication. I know that, due to cultural bias, Greek manufacturers are not particularly known in North America. I am pleased that, at least, the article was not CSD'ed. That would be too much cultural bias. Dr. K. 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K. At least many of the new references added are not from relable sources (ellines.com, ipop.gr, newsbomb.gr). The coverage on the subject looks like just a reproduction of the point of view of the company, based on YT viedos, company statements etc. For example, presenting this aircraft as the "Greek Stealth bomber fighter" (huffingtonpost.gr), is just ridiculous in my opinion. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think all 11 sources are reliable. In particular, non-trivial coverage in the Macedonia newspaper, Flyer magazine, Flying magazine, iefimerida.gr, etc., is indicative of the notability of the subject. HuffPo, newsbeast are also very reliable,. despite your objections. Same goes for the Spanish aviation magazine etc. Even if we subtract the sources you think are unreliable, there are more than enough remaining sources to establish the notability of this article, a fact you seem to de facto recognise, since you didn't say all the sources are unreliable. In any case, I get your POV, I think it is faulty, and I do not wish to continue arguing with you, especially since you seem eager to cause this notable article to be deleted using faulty arguments. You put this article for speedy deletion without doing any due diligence. If you had done so you would have discovered the reliable sources that myself and Mr. Skartsis found and you would not have put this article up for speedy deletion. Thankfully, you were overruled by an admin, Paul McDonald, and there is now a good chance that the article will be saved. Since you have a userbox at your userpage that you participate in AfD discussions, I advise you in future to be more careful when you tag articles for CSD. Also thankfully, we live in a wiki. Other knowledgeable users will undoubtedly chime in, so we don't need to continue this back and forth between us. Finally, you do not need to ping me. First, I find pinging annoying. Second, I have the page watchlisted and, if I wish, I respond. Dr. K. 09:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't understand why a simple article about an existing, legitimate company with so many references to it, has caused so heated arguments regarding its deletion. It is my turn to wonder why. At some point it even looked like not being familiar with all aspects of Wikepedia, which has tons of articles about individual vehicles or aircraft (even if a single copy was built) - fully corresponding to its spirit and mission. The entire, or most of the Category "Ultralight Aircraft", as well as many other entire Categories, should be deleted according to some of the arguments I read.Skartsis (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K. Flyer magazine [13] follows the same pattern as the sources I mentioned: just a reproduction of the company claims based on (a promotional ?) video ("The single-seater, again based on the video, lifts off slowly and needs little room to get back on the ground, all the better for making believe you’re ending the mission by catching the wire. For more info, check out the company’s site, www.aerosports.gr"). Furthermore, the subject of the added sources is a specific model, not the company as a whole. Don't see any really independent coverage on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are selectively cherry picking sources while ignoring the rest of the WP:RS that exist in the article. Read my previous response. The RS currently in the article do not cover the Archon Stealth kit only. They cover the designer and his history as well. You can benefit by reading them. Also, as I mentioned before, do not ping me. It is annoying. Dr. K. 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my issue is that I'm not convinced that WP:COI and WP:GNG thresholds are met. I'm not convinced because the sources are in a non-English language on an English encyclopedia. I'm more than willing to be wrong here--maybe it DOES meet those thresholds and I'm just not able to confirm. But to me, if the supporting sources aren't in the language of the encyclopedia, that points to trying another wiki that has alignment with the language.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more English language source, and a link to the website of G-Aerosports U.S. Dealer (referring to the Canadian manufacturer that will produce one of its products under license for the North American market). Not notable??...In my eyes, so many sources and such documentation for such a subject, look almost ridiculous... I had said that I would not argue further, but I am puzzled by some of the arguments. It isn't about anybody's promotion (such articles are visited by 1-2 viewers a day, at best). It is about formal inclusion of a decent manufacturer in English WP's database, in exactly the same way so many (similar) others are included - and keep being added. If we favor (for whichever reason) deletion of an article, arguments can always be found.Skartsis (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) WP:TRYANOTHER nowhere mentions that a source must be in the English laguage to be acceptable and, in the absence of an English source, an article must move to the language of these sources. This is a stark misinterpretation of TRYANOTHER. WP:RS does not exclude reliable sources in other languages either. In fact, foreign language sources are widely used in Wikipedia articles all the time, and, sometimes, exclusively. If you don't believe me, ask WP:RSN about that. As far as COI, Mr. Skartsis has removed his book from the article. I don't see any vestiges of COI on his part. Dr. K. 15:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about trying another wiki are about finding the best home for the information. No, it doesn't talk about languages and such. It's not a policy or guideline, simply an essay of ideas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the age of Google translate, I don't think foreign sources are such a challenge any longer. Thank you for the clarification. Dr. K. 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company as follows:

This from makthes.gr relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
Leaving aside any discussion on whether this from ellines.com is a reliable source, it also relies entirely on an interview with the founder and fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This from ipop.gr is remarkably similar to the makthes.gr reference above and also relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
This from transponder1200.com describes one of the planes and does not provide in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This HuffPost reference repeats parts of an interview from another article and has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from newsbomb.gr repeats information from another article on one of the aircraft from a blog (blogs fail WP:RS) and provides no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from flyinmag.com comments on a video of one of the aircraft, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from flyer.co.uk repeats information about the same aircraft as the other refs above, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from all-aero.com fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from SIA Magazine also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from iefimerida.gr also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
Finally, this from makthes.gr relies on an interview, has no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH

There is possibly a case for an article about the Archon aircraft itself but the topic company fails NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have said, the whole issue is about the "right" of a given company to be included in Wikipedia's database (which, through endless categories, tries to include even very small manufacturers). I have added yet one more reference. I suggest we all wait until the JULY 2022 OSHKOSH AIR SHOW, where a company model (Archon SF/1) will be presented, and see whether there is adequate publicity and reference.Skartsis (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is clearly notable, having produced some remarkable aircraft on very limited resources. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources also. Khirurg (talk) 22:59, 6 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 Yoga as exercise. Star Mississippi 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation and Yoga Retreat

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

It's unclear what this page is about beyond what is covered in other more specific articles, e.g. Retreat (spiritual). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.The article has been wrongly proposed for deletion. The subject of the article holds high importance in the current scenario in the public interest. Meditation and Yoga Retreat has been catching awareness of general public due to many benefits. These centres are situated across the world offering many services. Request to remove the tag.Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ari T. Benchaim. Hope you are doing well.Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. The article Retreat (spiritual) is very vast and doesn't cover the objectives in detail. It is a concept based article than activity based. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I see the point about yoga retreats being a Thing - there's certainly sourcing for the topic. But I doubt we need a separate article. Seems to me all facets are nicely covered at the very well-developed Yoga as exercise, or could be covered there. So I'd suggest redirecting to that article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elmidae. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. The article Yoga as exercise covers many aspects of yoga. However the retreats doesn't include all of these, hence I feel this article is relevant in Wikipedia. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The way this article is constructed, there is not enough for a separate article. Meditation alone is an extremely large topic, and this article covers Yoga as exercise with dot points. Redirect is a sensible outcome. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. As replied above, I feel the article Yoga as exercise covers many aspects of yoga which are not covered during retreats,hence I feel this article is relevant in Wikipedia. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: With Yoga and meditation, you could examine the Spiritual Retreat article which , you will see, is in need of expansion. I would take note of Robert McClenon's good advice rendered below, should you decide to tackle that article. The thing that is most popular among adherents of many faiths is the Vipassana Retreat, which is somewhat along the lines of this article. You could take a look here, here and perhaps, here. We do not have a specific article addressing the Vipassana retreat which combines meditation and some yoga. It is worth exploring, although. The thing is that people from many faiths - and no faith - do attend and attest the value of these retreats. Hope this helps. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru. Thanks for your reply. However if I consider as pointed out by Robert below 1. The article in brief highlights in general the purpose of 1.Meditation and Yoga retreats in simple way 2. Writing it focussed on any individual or group will make it promotional. The article has been sourced from various reliable sources to highlight the importance of such retreats organisation in general by any organisation. Kindly clarify. Gardenkur (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are at least two problems. First, this reads like an essay or class paper rather than an encyclopedic article. It does not report what reliable sources say about the topic. It is not clear whether there would be an article if the views of reliable sources were reported, but this article does not do that. Second, the topic is unfocused, and it is not clear whether it is about retreat centers, individual or group outings to retreat centers, or what. The closer may decide whether to redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. If the main concern as pointed out by you is agreed by others too, I will try to address that. However, as the concept of Yoga and meditation retreat is spreading globally, hence I feel this article is important as informational source in Wikipedia. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Aura

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

There appears to be a discussion about the notability of this article (see Article Talk Page, Talk page of a user who nominated for speedy deletion, and a declined draft submission. I am therefore starting an AfD discussion to gain concensus. Osarius 08:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 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. ✗plicit 10:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andaingo (desambiguation)

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

Not needed - setting aside the spelling, there is only one entry. The other mentions are red-linked partial title matches. Leschnei (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G14. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded it to include additional uses. And of course Move to fix the spelling error. MB 14:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would still delete, none of those additions is ambiguous. Leschnei (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've created a sourced little stub at Andaingo (moth) which I'm sure a lepidopterist or taxonomist will be along soon to improve, and made a hatnote to it from the Madagascar location, so the dab page is not needed. PamD 11:51, 21 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) 10:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed DAB page. SWinxy (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two qualifying terms (village and genus), solved with hatnote; no dab needed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 5 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 merge to Battle of Kakkor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kakor (1759)

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

It also exists here Battle of Kakkor, we should not have two articles on the same subject. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This article cites one source not used by the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and consolidate into Battle of Kakkor. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles in popular culture

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

How times change. The last AfD from 4 years ago was a strong keep, with nobody but the nominator (User:TenPoundHammer) supporting deletion. Yet the keep votes were not policy based - they simply repeated WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and like. IMHO the policy falls squarely on the delete side of this debate. The list has almost no references (fails WP:V), if gutted to meet WP:V the article would cease to exist. As a list, it fails WP:LISTN (" One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" - such sources have not been found; if they were, we still have a WP:V issue). As a potential article, it fails WP:IPC, WP:OR. In fact, the topic might be notable (my BEFORE suggests that indeed there may be some sources), not that anything in the article supports this, but nothing here seems salvageable - a proper analytical piece would have to be written from scratch. WP:TNT applies to this TVTropic list, unless someone rewrites this during the ongoing discussion (then we can preserve the old content in the article's history). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Lists, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction to make way for a proper article. The list has only a smattering of sources regarding specific entries and makes no credible claim of significance for its topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's List of television shows set in Los Angeles and List of films set in Los Angeles so I'm not sure what the point of this (wildly incomplete) duplication is. Reywas92^Talk 13:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 And do those lists eve neet WP:NLIST? Something to consider in the future... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Pointing to WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES does not seem fitting, because there are secondary sources! Well, at least if one uses "Los Angeles in fiction" as search words. Like this whole book, or the whole book that is reviewed here; or this whole PhD thesis. (Yeah, yeah, I know, the sources were not specifically noted down in the previous discussion...) Which also means that the topic does not fail WP:LISTN. I also don't see any problem whatsoever with WP:V, as the primary sources are self-evident. And primary sources are fine to use, they just don't establish notability... which is not our problem here. For the same reason I don't see WP:OR here. Allright, as there are currently hardly any sources present, I do see the problem with what to include as notable with regard to the topic. So I suggest to, for the time being, change this to a disambiguation page, basically keeping and expanding the See also section, until someone expands it to a proper prose article or a list with more clearly defined inclusion criterea. This would also preserve what we currently have in the history, which I see as a benefit as experience has shown that some entries will be significant and will appear in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios The sources you found seem to be about Los Angeles in fiction, not Los Angeles in popular culture. Recently I've been thinking about the distinction between such topics, which is a bit hard to pin down. Related to this is the issue whether we need to standardize some article's names. Might be worth discussing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture, which is sadly inactive. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: In my experience the two designations are used more or less interchangeably on Wikipedia. The essay you referred to, WP:IPC, does that! Looking at the content of our article, the only section one could argue about is In music. And even that can be fiction, if a songtext or video tells a non-factual story. And if it really would hinge on the distinction, and a simple name change to Los Angeles in fiction would clearly solve any supposed notability issues, than that's surely an alternative to deletion that should be taken in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I think the name cultural depictions of Los Angeles would be even better (broadest). Pop culture doesn't cover 'classics', and 'in fiction' does seem limiting when it comes to weird stuff like music, culinary applications, LEGO models, historical reenactment, whatever. I'll probably start an RfC somewhere, and ping many folks active here (regarding mass renaming of all 'in fiction'/'in popular culture' articles to 'cultural depictions of'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The question is what the goal is. The current name fits what we currently have. If there are concerns, oh no, that isn't notable, because we only have encompassing sources talking about "in fiction", and not using the term "in popular culture", than the narrower title would solve that. It's not a concern I have, I and I think it would mean playing WP:LISTN against WP:AtD-M for not good reason, but there it is. Changing to "in culture" would open the article to more input, which might solve notability concerns (again, which I don't share) by another route. It does, however, beg the question what to include. Are there some new corners of Category:Culture of Los Angeles that we then would need to think about? So that might be better suited to solve at the more general discussion you have started. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand by what I said in the last AFD. This is just an unverifiable mess, and no one arguing to "keep" in the last AFD gave a concrete reason. The concept is just a random WP:NOTTVTROPES violation that by design calls for a garden variety of unsourced trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An actual article on the topic would very likely be notable. This list is not, being a ridiculously broad attempt to seemingly list every time that Los Angeles has appeared in fiction, no matter how brief or unimportant that appearance was. There is zero prose text discussing the concept here, and zero reliable sources that would be usable anywhere else, just a list of mostly terrible trivia. Any potential article or section on the actual topic would not benefit at all from the preservation of this list. Additionally, as Reywas92 pointed out, we already have lists serving a navigational purpose for the notable works set in LA, making this list redundant on top of everything else. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it, according to WP:OR. This article is entirely WP:OR based on the observations of editors, with no reliable sources on the topic of how Los Angeles is portrayed in popular culture. I wouldn't rule out someone could write an article about how Los Angeles is imagined, separate from how Los Angeles is. But there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article, which is entirely constructed in a way that is WP:NOT compatible with Wikipedia policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't think we should entertain a disambig. AnM2002 (talk) 10:08, 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. General consensus against deletion, although this is not to prevent anyone from restructuring the article in the way mentioned by TompaDompa. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction

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

The article (de facto a list) was improved during the prior AfD when references have been added by User:XOR'easter (it had zero before). Unfortunately, it is still very problematic, as it is a list of media in which this topic appears. There is no source that shows such a list has been subject to discussion outside Wikipedia (fails WP:NLIST: " One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"). If we look at it as a "in popular culture" article, it fails WP:IPC. I don't see any source that discusses this topic (FLT in fiction, or FLT in popular culture, etc.). Which means this fails WP:OR and WP:GNG; the claim in the lead that "The problem in number theory known as "Fermat's Last Theorem" has repeatedly received attention in fiction and popular culture.", while arguably true, is unreferenced and unless it can be - with a secondary, reliable source that meets WP:SIGCOV - this article a major problem with the above-mentioned policies. While now, yes, referenced, I fear this is simply not encyclopedic material, just a TVTropic, WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of all media which mentions this topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Science, Mathematics, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Fermat's 1637 claim, only recently proved, is perhaps the most famous problem in mathematics and has captured the imagination of mathematicians and lay people for centuries.The statement that it "has repeatedly received attention in fiction and popular culture" is not just "arguably true," it is amply demonstrated by the article's contents, which our introductions are supposed to summarize. Merriam-Webster defines encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge..." It is not a limiting term. The list of instances here could be merged into the primary article without the summary sentence, but that article is already long and splitting out the material in a separate article is appropriate editorial judgement. The contents of this article are of significant interest to our readers. It has survived two deletions reviews. Enough already.--agr (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the content passes MOS:POPCULT based on the sources in the article and it is appropriate to have a seperate article on this per WP:SUMMARY. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SailingInABathTub Please elaborate on how POPCULT is met. It states: "all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." Which references go beyond mentioning the subject's appearance and "in some depth...links the cultural item to the subject of the article", i.e. provide a non trivial discussion of how a given work of fiction is connected to the topic of the Fermat's Last Theorem? Ideally, a short quotation would be preferred. TIA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per POPCULT: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."--agr (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold The question, then, is our interpretation of "otherwise suitable"... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around since 2007 and has been edited by dozens of contributors who thought the material suitable, And it has survived two previous deletion attempts. Who now gets to "interpret" suitability, ignoring all those past voices?--agr (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the first source in this article,^[1] there are many reliable secondary sources which specifically link a cultural item to Fermat's last theorem. The sources all cover the theorem in some depth.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Jay Garmon (21 February 2006). "Geek Trivia: The math behind the myth". TechRepublic. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
^ Anna Davis (7 October 2013). "One plus one equals Doh! How The Simpsons can teach children maths". Evening Standard. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
^ Dan Solomon (1 February 2022). "The Secret Story of the Texas Philanthropist Who Helped Solve Math's Toughest Riddle". TexasMonthly. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
^ Kevin Knudson (20 August 2015). "The Math Of Star Trek: How Trying To Solve Fermat's Last Theorem Revolutionized Mathematics". Forbes. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
^ Simon Singh (22 September 2013). "The Simpsons' secret formula: it's written by maths geeks". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
^ Robert Krulwich (11 May 2014). "Did Homer Simpson Actually Solve Fermat's Last Theorem? Take A Look". NPR. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SailingInABathTub The sources do suggest that the topic is notable, but precious little if anything from the current article is rescuable (and the sources are not great, since they generally focus on the use of the theorem in one piece of media; they say very little if anything aobut "Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction", as in, they don't address the "big picture" outside few passing mentions. This is the case of WP:TNT, or a proper rewrite needed. Referencing a list of trivia is just, sorry to say, a waste of time. It needs to rewritten into an analytical piece. If you think this can be done with the current sourcing, by all means, take a stab, and ping me when there's a paragraph here that's not a bullet point trivia that FLT was mentioned in The Simpsons or whatever. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that prose is preferable to a list format, but this can be resolved through the normal editing process. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could, if there was anything to rescue except categories and external links/see also. As thing stand, the only difference between hard and soft deletion would be that in the latter case, edit history would be preserved. I would, in fact, prefer this outcome, but it would require someone to start rewriting this properly now, during the AfD. Otherwise, this will be deleted, with no prejudice to someone writing this anew from scratch. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your policy-based reasoning that there is nothing to be rescued? WP:OR? I think that it's clear from the reliable sources that exist, that they directly support the content. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And POPCULT. Yes, we can reference that such and such work mentioned this, but it is OR to claim this constitutes a notable example of the use of this work. Maybe a few sentences could be salvaged, like the content about The Simpsons, but first, we need to have at least a stubish few sentences about the main topic. We can't have an article that consists of a claim that FLT has been extensively referenced in fiction backed up with no reliable source saying this, then one or two or three examples. Such a tiny article, at best, would merit an immediate merger to Fermat's_Last_Theorem#In_popular_culture. In fact, now that I look, that section is already in prose format and superior to this OPish article, which contains even less analysis, and just more trivial examples. As such, I'd suggest we just redirect this there, with no loss of non-trivial content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not make the claim that "FLT has been extensively referenced in fiction". The article only claims that it has "repeatedly received attention in fiction and popular culture" a claim which is validated by the sources that I have provided and that you yourself in your nomination acknowledge is true. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SailingInABathTub As I said, due to sparsity of examples meeting IPC, there is not much to rescue here. We could possibly have a stub of few sentences, but what's the point, given that we have a perfectly acceptable section in the main article that would be its exact duplicate? That section now has a proper lead in sentence I've added based on a source you found, and discusses the two apparently most famous appearances in media and pop culture that you also referenced, i.e. the Star Trek and The Simpsons use. What else is there to keep? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both know that almost everything that has a half decent source in this article will then end up in main article, only for the section to be split off once again per WP:SUMMARY and David_Eppstein (talk · contribs). It's pointless to delete a notable article that is clearly needed. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that we should keep bad content in location A to keep it out of location B is a terrible one. Just remove the bad content instead. Having a weak-scope sub-article for the sole purpose of keeping the main article clean is a bad solution that stems from a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the main article. As WP:CARGO says: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Don't we have an essay on that? Ping UseR:TenPoundHammer, maybe they know the right one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia articles are supposed to (a) meet our policies and (b) have reliable independent sources, despite bald claims that WP:ITSFAMOUS. This article is entirely WP:OR, built off the original observations of various editors, without any reliable sources. WP:OR says if no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. No independent reliable sources have provided WP:SIGCOV of the topic of this theorem in popular culture. Even if such sources appeared, there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article as it is composed of entirely WP:NOT suitable content. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I think it's obvious that this article should either be kept or merged into Fermat's_Last_Theorem#In_popular_culture, which is a short version of this article. The topic is of high interest. The claim by Shooterwalker that it is OR ignores the fact that collecting information from outside is what an encyclopedia does; that is not an argument against keeping this. Zaslav (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. The existence of this article is necessary, per Wikipedia:Summary style, as an overflow valve to keep the example farm in the main article from being overrun with minor examples, as it has already started to do again today in edits by User:Piotrus and User:Zaslav in the wake of this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I also found a publication (in Spanish) overviewing this exact subject: [14]. It is also covered in multiple paragraphs (although not the main topic of the article) at [15]. So there's a case for WP:GNG notability for this specific topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Uh, do you even look at the content? Zaslav didn't add anyting, but removed much content. I added an example that arguably is not "minor", but arguably the most relevant analytical "big treatment" we have, and that wasn't present in either article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Did you even look at the edit history? At the time I made this comment, Zaslav's only edit was Special:Diff/1089087979, which was indeed an addition. The removal came later. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you still misunderstood my comment, and Zaslav changed his half an hour later, so... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument, but one can't compare the importance of Arthur Porges's classic story, which is all about the mathematics, with a minor Star Trek episode. I'm tempted to cut out the truly trivial from the main page. Zaslav (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adding to David Eppstein's length argument: the main page is already overloaded (much too long). Even cutting out "Popular culture" entirely would not make a difference. Zaslav (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaslav I don't understand what your argument has to do with the keep? Are you opposing the merger? That's fine, but why keep the list of trivia on Wikipedia at all? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but I'm not prepared to decide whether there is enough material here to make an article, so I'm suggesting keep until someone can prune out the inappropriate trivia. If nothing much is left, then we can merge the remainder. If much remains, we can keep it. I hope this answers you well. Zaslav (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're all missing the actual solution here: create a proper prose article on the broader topic Mathematics in fiction (currently a WP:REDLINK), cover Fermat's Last Theorem there in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, and then redirect this title there. This should be a satisfactory WP:PAGEDECIDE solution to everyone since the topic of Mathematics in fiction actually does have WP:Significant coverage as an overarching topic in multiple WP:Reliable sources. If I find the time, I'll probably do this in the coming days. I must also say I am not sympathetic to the view that we should have articles like this as an overflow valve to keep the example farm in the main article from being overrun with minor examples—if it is indeed an WP:EXAMPLEFARM, the solution is to get rid of it rather than to move it elsewhere (see the essay WP:CARGO: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content.) TompaDompa (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathematics in fiction is clearly a notable topic, with multiple publications devoted to it ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20]). But the existence of a broader umbrella topic that might also be notable is not a useful way of deciding whether a specific topic is notable, and not a solution. There's no way such an umbrella article can cover all of the topics over which it is an umbrella, at the full depth that those topics would be covered individually. I think circle-squaring in Dante's Divine Comedy may be borderline notable, for instance (I can point to at least three publications that discuss it in-depth, two of them devoted specifically to it), for instance: is your umbrella article on mathematics in fiction going to cover all of the detail that would be covered in a separate article? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's possible some subarticles would be warranted, but so what? Right now we don't have enough content for Fermat's Last Theorem outside of a tiny stub, which deserves to be included as a subsection in larger scope articles anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't making a point about notability, I was making a point about the best way to cover the topic on Wikipedia. Hence my reference to WP:PAGEDECIDE, which explicitly says There are other 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. What we currently have here is a bullet list that enumerates examples of Fermat's Last Theorem appearing in works of fiction, with no overarching analysis whatsoever. That's not a proper encyclopaedic article, that's a TV Tropes list. If this were to be converted to a proper prose article on Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction, with overarching analysis about Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction, based on reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources specifically about the topic of Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction, the issue would be moot.
      is your umbrella article on mathematics in fiction going to cover all of the detail that would be covered in a separate article? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is supposed to summarize available information. An article with a broader scope going into less detail on a subsection of its scope than a hypothetical stand-alone article with a narrower scope is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be a proper application of WP:PROPORTION. However, as noted above, we do not at present have enough content for a proper article on the subject of Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction to begin with, so this is rather academical. The problem here is that this is a bad article, and as was admitted above, this is by design because it is meant to be an overflow valve to keep the example farm in the main article from being overrun with minor examples.
      If I had the sources to rewrite this as a proper encyclopaedic prose article about the subject (rather than just collating examples), I would do so. I have done so for numerous other articles, see e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination) (though most of the expansion was done by Piotrus later), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination). I've also done the same thing for several articles that weren't brought to WP:AfD, such as Immortality in fiction, Moon in science fiction, and Mercury in fiction, all of which are WP:Good articles). This is all to say that there is a way to write quality articles about X in fiction/popular culture/whatever, and the current state of this article categorically isn't it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to propose a compromise alternative, which is to move this to Mathematics in fiction for now, with the explicit possibility of breaking it out into a new article again if 1) the proposed article grows large enough that it merits subdivision, and 2) content on this specific aspect continues to grow (without the addition of trivialities) to the point that it merits more than a subsection in a mathematics in fiction article. As it stands, I think that it does not. However, there are plenty of movies (almost to the point of tropedom), where the janitor or some idiot savant solves the unsolvable problem left on the blackboard. BD2412 T 06:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 May I suggest that you try to at least stub such an entry first, then we could redirect the current article there? The problem is that most of the examples here are irrelevant (i.e. that listing them fails MOS:POPCULT: "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article"). So just changing a name is hardly an improvement if that cruft will stay. Likewise, mathematics in fiction should not be a listing of all media in which math was mentioned in... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Although shorter than Fermat's Last Theorem, the binomial theorem has a section related to popular culture. --SilverMatsu (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which should be deleted as it is pure WP:TRIVIA failing MOS:POPCULTURE... sadly, nothing to merge to the possibly-to-come 'mathematics in culture' article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 29 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 and stubbify. This is an unusual AfD, in that the notability of the underlying topic is not in substantial dispute, even by the nominator, hence a rather unusual outcome. Many editors are in substantial agreement that the article in its current form is in extremely poor shape, has been for many years, and a reset would be the best way forward. It should be noted that, going forward, an AfD is not required for such a step to be taken. If editors believe portions are salvageable, the page history will remain accessible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture studies

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

The topic is notable, but the article is an WP:ORish essay that merits either a WP:TNT or cutting down to bare bones (the lead), unless someone feels like rewriting this. It has been tagged as a "a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay" since 2010. No surprise, given it was indeed someone's ORish essay from 2004 ([21]). Over the years, it hasn't changed much - it has been wikified and slightly expanded, but it still is mostly unreferenced. Much of the content is not even on topic. The first section, "Traditional theories of popular culture", introduces three theories (with no indication which scholar or scholars think they are relevant to the topic, i.e. traditional theories of popculture). The first two subsections, about mass society and culture industry, don't even discuss popular culture. The problems continue through the article. It is a decent essay, but a terrible encyclopedic article (the title should be "anonymous editor musings on what they thought is meant by popculture studies"). In 20 years, it hasn't changed much. It's high time to blow this up, or at minimum, reduced to the lead section (and bibliography, which should be renamed to 'further reading'), and then expand with proper sources and an encyclopedic style (on that note, the article still uses the phrase "of course" twice...). PS. I hope nobody brings up the AFDNOTCLEANUP. This cannot be cleaned up, 20 years failed at that. It needs radical treatment (deletion of 99% of the content)±. This is why I bring this to AfD (I could just blank everything except the lead myself, but I think that would not be best practice...). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Social science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The OP is correct that this article needs a major overhaul. It should be nominated at Articles for Improvement perhaps, but it clearly passes WP:GNG as there are countless mentions of the term across scholarly sources and otherwise. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the deletion rationale (original research), and articles on notable topics may still be deleted if the circumstaces demand it. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would deleting be better than wiping most of it and rewriting? According to WP:ATD, If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I think it's clear that editing can improve this article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skipper WP:TNT explains the other side of the coin. Although yes, in this case, I think a few sentences (the very lead) are rescuable. But as I said, I don't think it's fair to blank 99% of the article without a discussion (theoretically, according to Wikipedia rules, I could've just redirected this to popular culture, per WP:SOFTDEL, etc., but I also think that's not best practices), and AfD is IMHO the right venue to announce the intention to get rid of vast amount of content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To address the nominator's points more specifically, I think there is enough here to salvage the article in terms of trimming down to the lead, and perhaps a "History of the term" section. That would be easy enough, and I would be happy to do it, if the AfD tag is removed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skipper It's ok to attempt a major rewrite during an AfD, and I'd be happy to withdraw this AfD if I think the article has improved sufficiently. Otherwise I'd be happy to recommend draftification of this in your userspace, if you'd prefer not to do anything during an AfD. But withdrawing now risks the article not being changed, and this is not something I am prepared to do. From my perspective, by the time this AfD is finished, the article needs to be fixed, one way or another, and keeping it in the current version is not fixing it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 16:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and fix it. In time all things will be fixed. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone thinks that this could be effectively stubbified or startified rather than nuked, go for it. As noted, it's a valid topic. I would suggest moving to draft in that case to gain a little leisure, unless surgery on the hoof is intended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:36, 19 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) 11:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Clearly not ready for main space, with lots of tags dating back to 2010, and if somebody was going to fix it, they would have done so by now. Sandstein 08:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We also have Cultural studies which states that it includes popular culture. Perhaps it would be better to merge a small of this text there. Though, that page also needs work. --mikeu ^talk 19:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not terrible. AfD is not the place to discuss improving and article or otherwise fixin' it. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ghastly mess of OR that's been around for more than long enough for someone to improve it if they wanted to. Those offering could request restoration to draftspace, but I suspect that as usual the offers are merely token and if kept no actual work will take place; at most the article will be thrown in a maintenance category and left to fester for another 18 years. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 1 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Chumpih ^t 17:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McKeever (baseball)

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

Didn't find any articles apart from a few catalogue entries, so didn't appear to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Chumpih ^t 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chumpih ^t 11:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Canada, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG, see sources 1, 4 and 5 in this revision. Nice job by Cbl62 expanding the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. I have asked SABR for a copy of Russell Field's biography of McKeever, published in 1996. Once I receive it, I will expand further. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by Cbl62 and the copious citations I see in Newspapers.com that aren't used yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per WP:HEY. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:41, 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 redirect to List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers. ✗plicit 11:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Ali

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

Subject lacks significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers. Doesn't meet the updated WP:NCRIC or WP:GNG. I would've G7ed it but this seems like a better idea as he appeared for a PSL franchise and can appear in PSL in future. Human (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Human. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has played a handful of FC/LA/T20 games, but fails the new updated WP:NCRIC guidelines. Not seeing anything in a google search to suggest a GNG pass, although there may well be sourcing out there in Pakistani language sources. No suitable redirect here as he's played for 3 notable teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers as the most major of teams he has played for. StickyWicket (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.

I am extremely conscious of the ongoing debates about guidelines for sportspeople. This debate is one where there is a good-faith disagreement about the interpretation of a guideline. Whilst I am entitled to give lesser weight to contributions that don't have basis in policy, I am not required to write them off entirely. And what we have here is a great many arguments to keep versus a very small, but higher-quality, set of arguments to delete. These in my view net off against one another, and I do not find a consensus to delete.

Anyone who feels merging or redirecting is appropriate is not enjoined from doing so, either by way of WP:BB, or by starting a talk page discussion.

As with all my AFD closures, I have considered this very carefully and will not change my decision based on talk page messages. Anyone wishing to contest the closure may proceed directly to DRV and I waive any and all requirements, expectations, etc. to consult me first. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Kausar

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

No evidence of notability. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and Pakistan. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence of notability" - playing for the national team would suggest otherwise. Ironically, after the almost complete annihilation of WP:NSPORT, she passes WP:NCRIC ("Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation"). However, if sources cannot be found in this instance, then redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. I'll ask the article's other contributor to see if they can find anything more. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple sources - her CricketArchive profile and an article on the background of the Pakistan tour she was part of. WP:NCRIC really is at the bare minimum at the moment, but as Lugnuts says Shabana Kausar does meet it as an international cricketer. Mpk662 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An international cricketer, so passes the updated agreed to WP:NCRIC. Sourcing likely exists on all international cricketers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't delete international cricketers, they have played the game at the highest level. Meets WP:NCRIC and there is probably an abundance of sources in Pakistani print media about this female cricketer. StickyWicket (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We delete any article which doesn't have significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true, articles can be nominated for deletion, but if there is a likelihood that sourcing may exist (potentially offline in more historic sportsmen and women, or in other languages that can be more difficult to find in a BEFORE search) then articles can be kept. I've seen this in a number of football related articles that have gone through AfD in the past few months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That simply isn't the case, international sportspeople who have played at the highest level have presumed coverage. Especially in cricket, where the subject is from a cricket mad country, which will have written coverage. Sadly, Pakistani print media isn't digitalised, but hey... let's create Anglopedia, where only things covered digitally in the Anglosphere count! StickyWicket (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NCRIC says that significant coverage is likely to exist, not that it is presumed to exist or that notability is presumed. It's enough to make a prod inappropriate, but not enough to keep the article at AFD when it fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 - the latter of which means passing WP:NCRIC is irrelevant, as she fails the broader WP:NSPORT guidelines.

Redirect is not appropriate, as it is ambiguous - other people with the same name are mentioned in other articles, including a Pakistani Javelin thrower. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case a dab page should be created - existence of other people is no reason to deprive this person of findability via a redirect. As well as the javelin thrower there seems also to be a composer &/or singer of film theme tunes - see Saari Bhool Hamari Thi, Mujhay Sandal Kar Do and Meray Khwab Raiza Raiza. PamD 09:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The search function is more effective for that, as it will allow readers to find all people by this name, while the dab page is likely to be unmaintained and exclude many. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you could say that of any dab page. Perhaps you don't believe in creating them at all? PamD 05:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles. Those that disambiguate between notable topics and significant mentions do this; the search results are often extensive and include many passing mentions on different topics from the one the reader is searching for.

Those that disambiguate between passing mentions do the opposite; they might provide a link to the wrong passing mention, such as linking to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers when the reader wants Pakistan women's cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1996–97, or they might miss passing mentions that were added more recently due to the pages not being maintained. For this, the search function is more effective. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For most purposes, the search function is actually pretty awful. It's great at generating a jumble of articles that contain both of two words, but not so great in providing a relevant proximity. BD2412 T 04:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes, but when the name is not shared by anyone notable I believe it works better than trying to maintain a disambiguation page - and I note that we aren't going to be adding all the non-notable but mentioned John Smith's to John Smith. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – passes WP:NCRIC. She played for her national side in 1997, when there were hardly any Pakistani publication online. So finding any online WP:SIGCOV content about her today, is near to zero. But we can't challenge the existence of such sources in offline media, libraries, papers, magazines and books etc (WP:NCRIC also support this assumption). I'll agree with those voicing for deletion, if they can extraordinarily look into all offline medias and then claim non existence of significant coverage. Till then big noo to deletion. Radioactive (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep - the arguments that have been made about a reasonable assumption that sources might exist is a fair one here I think - one appearance in a very minor match and I might suggest otherwise, but three matches against NZ and Australia means I tend to think it's reasonable, even if the team she played in was incredibly weak in comparison. Online sources will be problematic, and the gender bias in cricket sources of any kind at the time she played, especially those from south Asia, means that I have some doubts about proper in depth coverage - there have been cases in the past where we've struggled to find anything at all. In that case we would obviously, and I do mean really obviously, be looking at a redirect to an article such as List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, if necessary, really, really obviously again, via a dab page if absolutely required - or whenever it's required. There are so many arguments in favour of this approach as opposed to deletion and I do, I'm afraid, struggle to understand the delete votes here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No SIGCOV has been found, and more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that coverage generally does exist for 90s Pakistani women's international cricket players. No offline sources that would potentially offer coverage have been identified, so the best option here is to redirect until someone with the requisite access can produce GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rugbyfan22, StickyWicket, and especially Radioactive. St Anselm (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per Rugbyfan22 and StickyWicket. Passes WP:NCRIC. MelvinHans (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NCRIC does not confer notability, it predicts whether GNG is likely to be met. If editors show GNG is not met then passing NCRIC holds very little weight. JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:NCRIC is not met, because the guideline is WP:NSPORT, and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 is failed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone can show me where anyone has shown that GNG is not met? Has anyone attempted to access Urdu written sources, for example? Even attempted to? To suggest that the article be deleted when an obvious and clearly appropriate redirect target exists, without even attempting to see whether there are suitable paper-based sources strikes me as being directly opposed to a reasonable expectation of behaviour. Given that the RfC proposal which applies most obviously here stated clearly that articles should be grandfathered in some way, I find the suggestion that we delete rather than redirect even odder to fathom. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to (re)-closing admin - this AfD was closed on 31st May, and then undone by the closer per this request. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 31 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 14:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmona Ameer

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may have taken part in a major competition but doesn't have the coverage for WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 3 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 Vizing's theorem. Result of the redirect to Vizing's theorem. A new paragraph block is added with two sentences, one stating the discovery and one stating the independent discovery with refs. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 08:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. P. Gupta

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

Citation counts are in the double digits only. Single decent reference is passing at best. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPROF, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm always sad to see pre-internet mathematicians and scientists vanish from Wikipedia, because it's so hard for anyone to find out about them and their work. But I admit if there are no sources, there is no hope. All I can find is [22] which does discuss Gupta's work in some depth. It is unfortunate that he has such a common name, too; it makes it hard to search. Maybe there is something else out there, if someone's better at Google than me... Elemimele (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: I had the same problem, so I got a second opinion before I nominated. I couldn't see much at all. scope_creep^Talk 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I very much feared that might be the case. I posted the one ref I found in the forlorn hope that someone else might come up with one or two more, and we might scrape Gupta into the Keeps, but I didn't for a moment suspect you of a beforeless nomination. Elemimele (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, Ontario, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak because, like Elemimele, I'm sad to see the removal of a productive pre-internet mathematician. But as I wrote on my talk page before the nomination, I don't see a case for notability. Citation counts are in the double digits only, the article says he is mostly known for being late to the party, and our source for that only gives him passing coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Our article on h-index states that Google Scholar/Scopus both have limited coverage of publications pre-1990. That said, I wasn't able to find very much coverage. JSTOR has [23], which just confirms the subject's doctorate, but most of the rest of the hits appear to be either authored papers or a politician of the same name. Can we merge it somewhere in case someone finds another source, possibly not in English? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he was notable, there would be academic sources available, from everywhere. There is nothing. Is he is non-notable. Not even a mention at university, another sure sign he is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there enough here to perhaps support a redirect to Vizing's Theorem (with a brief mention there) as an alternative to deletion? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I suppose I should answer it. I don't know and i'm not sure. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vizing's theorem after adding a sentence. His independent co-discovery and first English-language publication 2-3 years after Vizing is sufficiently significant and well-sourced (with both the book source currently in the article and the source that Elemimele found) to deserve a mention in the History Section of Vizing's theorem. Felix QW (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could do this today. I will close it as a redirect, and take the pdf above and the book ref 2 and add a small section. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 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 and redirect to Barrelhouse. Clear consensus not to have a standalone about the company, no reason not to restore the redirect per Chubbles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel House

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:COMPANY. Seems promotional in creation, but aside from that, it does not meet WP:GNG. – DarkGlow • 09:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, and Iowa. – DarkGlow • 09:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was expanded from a redirect to Barrelhouse, and that redirect should be restored if delete prevails here. Chubbles (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a little difficult to do a good search, as the restaurant's name is a common term, but I can't find evidence it's notable. valereee (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - please redirect to Barrelhouse rather than delete. I would appreciate it if I don't have to go to DELREV to restore that redirect. Chubbles (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete showed nothing close to notability.Myna50 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why all !voters are ignoring me here? Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruvennainallur block

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

No content, extremely short stub, and potentially trivial. MxYamato (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Revenue blocks of Tamil Nadu has 379 articles, out of 1,349 Revenue blocks the state apparently has. They're pretty much all in this poor of a condition without explanation of why they're a notable subdivision in addition to the districts (taluks) when they're only used for tax-related administration. Reywas92^Talk 14:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revenue blocks seem to be administrative units in some way which probably satisfies GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete From what I see in the revenue block article, these are purely administrative divisions about which almost nothing can be said beyond which state they're in and which villages they contain. My impression is that they fail WP:GNG in that there's no real way to make a claim of notability about any of them. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reywas92. - SUN EYE 1 16:21, 9 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 speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 12:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Μόμπο

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

Article is not in English, I’m guessing its Greek or some Greek-related language MxYamato (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G7 [24] WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:59, 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. ✗plicit 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Antiguan and Barbudan parishes by number of internet users

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

I can't see any reason for having this as a standalone list when the information could be included in Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda if important.

Also nominating the related page List of Antiguan and Barbudan parishes by number of immigrants for the same reason. Sam Walton (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Caribbean. Sam Walton (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRIVIA. Unimportant stats. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its trivial, and can be included in the article you mentioned. MxYamato (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Peter Ormond 💬 18:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why in 2011? Why not in 2021? or 2001? or 1981? No reason to create an article capturing changing data for one year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Buddhism. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: "Easily confused." That's all I have to say. Pure OR/Synth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:06, 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]

Keep/Merge but at the very least rename, or merge somewhere. If we had a decent article on the Iconography of the Buddha or Buddha in art, much of it could go there, but (pathetically) we don't - that redirects to Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand. The title is obviously crap, but the delete votes don't seem to have looked beyond that, & offer no rationales for deletion (I just don't understand what SusanLesch is saying). User:Redtigerxyz, you haven't proposed a merge, or merges, but deletion. If it's deleted, it can't be suitably merged. As things are, it could be tacked on to Buddhist art. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 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]

Comment. I concur that the lack of Buddha in art is ridcolous. Jesus in art redirects to Depictions of Jesus. We do have Depictions of Gautama Buddha in film. I am sadly not familiar with the topic in question, but I do think that some content would belong to Depictions of Buddha. Is there anyone who could stub something on this so we would have a merge target? User:Uncle G, any chance this tickles your fancy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 13 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]

[25][26] 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]

Rename - This needs to go. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Related Talk:Buddharupa#Requested_move_3_June_2022 now started. That article will just cover Gautama Buddha. There seems consensus to rename this one - to Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art, unless anyone has a better idea. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current title is clear and describes the content, which is appropriately referenced, of general notability and importance and interest. It should be kept as it is, though I don’t object to renaming it as Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art if it needs to be renamed.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deciding whether something is "easily confused" is inevitably original research. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, everybody agrees the title is bad, but why is that a reason to delete rather than rename? Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 8 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 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 11:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statecraft (political science)

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

This is not a notable concept in the sense that it's used in the article. The most common way of using the term is a notable concept (e.g. [27]) but the concept in the article is primarily linked to one scholar and its meaning seems rather mundane (it's just coalition maintenance). It's also confusing and misleading to readers to state that this is the political science version of "statecraft" when the actual political science version of statecraft means something entirely different (something closer to grand strategy and diplomacy). If there's any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Jim Bulpitt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 11:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1 (Primeval season 1)

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

There are only individual articles on two out of the 36 episodes of Primeval, which feels markedly inconsistent (either they should go or more should be created - these two appear to be an holdover since the rest of the episode articles were deleted a while ago). The sources used for both are sub-par and no better sources will be possible to find for the individual episodes. A good article on a single episode (see for instance Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)) should incorporate more extensive information on both reception and production, which will not be possible here. Anything deemed relevant in these could be transferred over to the recently created article on the respective series: Primeval (series 1). This is not to mention that the title is a misnomer since the seasons of Primeval are called "series". Borgor2233 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

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. Consensus is clear the article needs improvement, not deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Winkler (chef)

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

Unsourced BLP The Banner talk 17:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Germany, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not unsourced, but incorrectly sourced. Found an interview, a third party bio, and a bunch of junk about the hotel, but there may be more. Huggums537 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is terrible, but person is clearly notable. (one source in German). —Kusma (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there appear to be a large number of sources on the German language version of the article. Not all of them are independent by any means, but there are a few that are. To satisfy the immediate BLP concerns, I am adding a source to a DW video about him, but there readily appear to be more sources in German. matt91486 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the the person is notable per references provided in the German version, but the article needs to be rewritten. Merko (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently a mess, but the German article shows that sufficient sources are available. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a large number of recognized sources and the article is referenced.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:49, 6 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 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 02:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ImmunityBio

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

Not a notable company as it is only known for potentially create the first COVID-19 vaccine. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. According to Reuters "Its clinical pipeline consists of approximately 26 actively recruiting clinical trials of which 17 are in Phase II or III development, across 13 indications in liquid and solid tumors, including bladder, pancreatic, and lung cancers, and infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2 and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." [28] The company is notable. Graham Beards (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Any links to references? We need references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability in order to Keep this article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 25 May 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)} 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company the appropriate guidelines is WP:NCORP. I have to agree with the nom. We've some references that discusses the product (the vaccine and its technology or its "billionaire" owner) but the criteria dictates we require references that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 16 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!} 05:57, 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 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Jafarov

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

Subject fails the general notability guidelines. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 05:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, News media, and Television. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 05:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see at least one more opinion about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a man doing his job. Article is a puff-piece. Entirely non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:28, 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 redirect to Basshunter discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Speaks to Me

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

Fails WP:NSONG. There are two non-trivial sources (might be a stretch on that too), Aftonbladet (ref #4) and EQ Music (ref #22). The remaining sources are all trivial mentions or lists of new music. The author provided some other sources on the talk page, but all those are also trivial references.

Note: this has previously been discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Speaks to Me and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Second_opinion_on_Life_Speaks_to_Me. Legoktm (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not refer to my last statement from 11:15, 9 May 2022 at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Speaks to Me or 11:23, 9 May 2022 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Second opinion on Life Speaks to Me so? You have not referred to it above either so why start new discussion instead of referring to new information in previous discussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Speaks to Me and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Second opinion on Life Speaks to Me? At this point this RfD is fake. What are we doing here? Eurohunter (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read it at the time, just didn't have anything new to reply. The sources you mentioned are from reputable/reliable sources, it's just that they're trivial mentions that don't qualify for notability under WP:NSONG. For example, take the NetFan.pl source. It allocates about 3 sentences on the Life Speaks to Me song, spending more time detailing Basshunter's past accomplishments. That it also reads like a press release also gives it less weight it in my eyes. Then there are sources like tophit.ru which are just a list of top songs, don't really establish notability (I believe these don't qualify under WP:CHART, please correct me if I'm wrong). Legoktm (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: TopHit is recommanded charts provider and the linked page is a article like in Billboard or Official Charts. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: "It allocates about 3 sentences on the Life Speaks to Me song" - I could say it's whole paragraph but what do you expect from article about new single? I think it's often like that in case of singles. Eurohunter (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 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!} 05:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As for the validity of the discussion, deletion proposals and DYK proposals are two different conversations so this "RfD is fake" line makes no sense. QuietHere (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @QuietHere: "deletion proposals and DYK proposals are two different conversations so this "RfD is fake" line makes no sense" - I did not refer to two places of discussion. I mean Legoktm just thought refernces are bad so for him it was not enough to notability. So I have checked these sources and provided additional information at talk page. He didn't not look at it and not answered - just nominated AfD - it's like it looks. Eurohunter (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be atleast redirected. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not even what I was saying, I was saying that you calling this discussion "fake"/illegitimate and dismissing it with a "What are we doing here?" is silly and rude because starting an XfD shouldn't be negated by some other ongoing discussion unless that discussion is about fixing problems with the page that the XfD is also addressing. And besides, Legoktm already said they looked at the sources you provided and that they weren't any good so accusing them of ignoring you is baseless.
    
    As for redirecting, yes, do that. Dunno why that isn't just the default option anyway. If there's an artist/discography page then why wouldn't you redirect to it? QuietHere (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuietHere: He had his arguments and I provided additional information to explain the situation - so in normal discussion you expect that he will provide any answer negative or positive, whatever. It's easy to say after that he not noticed improvements so he not answered. You expect an answer otherwise it can be considered as ignored. Without answer you don't know if for him nothing changed or he just ignored it. Eurohunter (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    @QuietHere: Let's be precise. "Legoktm already said they looked at the sources you provided" - he did it after I accused him. Eurohunter (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to artist. No attempt has been made to claim the validity of the sources in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @TenPoundHammer: How references are outdated? Eurohunter (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be atleast redirected. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basshunter discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SBKSPP: What do you mean? Did you checked refernces? Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Is there not a rule against replying to every single person who responds to an AfD? QuietHere (talk) 19:48, 5 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. ✗plicit 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DogmaModeler

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

This article has been without independent refs for more than a decade, almost as long since the software was last updated. Can't find any independent refs on the web or in google scholar (the software appears to have been created in an academic context). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd before
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect: The original PROD on the day of the article's creation in 2008 was removed by the article creator, who appears to have been associated with the software. The article is just a feature summary, and searches are finding little better than its inclusion in lists of similar software ([29]), which is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. Merging and redirecting to a new section in the article on the DOGMA project might be an option? AllyD (talk) 12:39, 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. The argument in this case has focused on whether the coverage of the subject is "significant" according to the terms of the General Notability Guideline. Sports figures often receive routine mentions in news coverage of their sport and/or data sources for competition statistics, and this type of coverage is not generally seen as establishing notability. The early discussion was largely a debate over whether there was enough coverage beyond that level to establish the notability of this person. The later participants have clearly weighed in with a consensus that there is not enough significant coverage at this time. Given that this subject is a living person and still active in the sport, that could easily change over time, but for this discussion the result is Delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treyten Lapcevich

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

Fails WP:GNG and ~~WP:NMOTORSPORT~~. Only uses databases as references. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Canada. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he competes at the top level of motorsports in his country. He competed in every race in 2021, finished fifth in the points, and was the series Rookie of the Year. He just won in the series and is on the radar on a major motorsports RS in the United States. Just because the first editor of this article is currently blocked doesn't change the notability of the subject. I contributed to this new article because of the subject has notability far beyond a passing mention or a database entry. Royal broil 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the additional sources added to the article are WP:ROUTINE news reports and do not have any WP:SIGCOV. Subject still fails GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the top level competitors in the highest level of sport in a major country non-notable? Royal broil 01:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what he does, he doesn't meet the general notability guideline. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs such as NMOTORSPORT exist to determine if a subject is likely to meet the GNG. It is not a guarantee either way. Many subjects pass GNG which don't meet their respective SNG, while others who may meet an SNG do not pass the GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the page of the article's creator, Royalbroil, I see that they are no longer blocked. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - Actually passes WP:NMOTORSPORT 4.1. Lapcevich won a round of a primarily-professional series of significant national importance, also noted by @Royalbroil. I don't see why this fails WP:GNG. If the race itself is notable enough for an article, I don't see why this driver is not. ~XyNq^t_c 16:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this fails WP:GNG. If the race itself is notable enough for an article, I don't see why this driver is not. - Thank you for highlighting a major, major problem within Wikiproject: Motorsport/Wikiproject: NASCAR. The article you link to was made by the same user who made this article, who made the article with absolutely zero regard for notability requirements. We have many editors who do such things and we simply cannot send all of these articles to AfD faster than what they are made. The fact that a massive cleanup is needed in this wikiproject should not be used as an argument in this particular AfD and I implore the closing admin to reject this argument. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I wasn't aware that article was created by the same person, I just saw it existed. In the case of that then, this article probably could be deleted along with the race article. I also notice all other links in the results list are redirects to the track itself and not synopses of the race. However, I do maintain that the driver in question does pass NMOTORSPORT, but needs more biographical info to constitute an article. ~XyNq^t_c 16:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been improved by the article creator, therefore I change my vote back to Keep. ~XyNq^t_c 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Are there any changes that could be made to the article that could have it pass any necessary guidelines? Thanks! Nascarbball24 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nascarbball24: If you can find sources that aren't WP:ROUTINE that cover the driver sufficiently and directly, it might help to pass WP:GNG. ~XyNq^t_c 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! Nascarbball24 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added multiple sources, as well as information in an attempt to improve this page. Nascarbball24 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nascarbball24: It still might need some editing to just clean up a little bit, but the added sources and info definitely help a lot. ~XyNq^t_c 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but of the 4 additional sources added, this and this are press releases which fail WP:V as they are not independent of the subject, while this and this are WP:ROUTINE news releases with no SIGCOV. None of these can count towards GNG for those reasons. We cannot write an encyclopedic article from these, and Wikipedia is not a mindless database. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There might be more content now but sourcing hasn't improved. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PR sources should be fine because they are only being referenced to show Lapcevich's participation in race series. The general concern outlined for press releases at WP:PRSOURCE seems to be focused on how press releases can include undue praise. Also I'm concerned how you think those two articles you addressed as routine have no significant coverage of Lapcevich as the articles cover him completely and directly. Not to mention, they are not routine articles much at all: the one about Lapcevich being slated to drive in Tagliani's car was published 5 days before the scheduled event. Far from routine if you ask me, unless you consider driver debuts as routine. ~XyNq^t_c 02:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that press releases explicitly fail the GNG by default. Furthermore, race teams make last minute announcements all of the time; the timing of these announcements has zero bering on their ROUTINEness, instead their content does. Both articles make a passing mention of finishing 3rd place in the "Ontario APC Series" but don't go into any further detail, since both articles are routine in their coverage. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 03:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're seriously stretching how ROUTINE is defined. While I think there shouldn't be two articles used there since they're pretty much about the same thing, I disagree that they're routine. The fact that you are stretching the definition of routine so much implores me to bring up the fact that, as said in WP:NOTROUTINE, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline intended for citing in articles about events (hence ROUTINE's much less used shortcut WP:DOGBITESMAN). ~~You are leaning much too heavily on trying to tear this article down based on stretching interpretation of guidelines.~~ Regarding your issue with those press releases failing GNG: if you want to stretch definitions, you could argue that those press releases are independent of Lapcevich himself because he did not make and publish them, therefore making them valid sources because they are independent. At worst article could be modified to mention that was referenced in a PR. Also, I'm curious, how does only a passing mention of him placing 3rd in a series constitute an article being routine? I'm not trying to ask that maliciously, I'm genuinely curious what your rationale is there. ~XyNq^t_c 04:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, there is nothing to tear down because, as I have already said there is nothing with which to write an encyclopedic article about this subject. Please strike this accusation. I'm not stretching anything. Both of them essentially say "Subject announced to drive for Team in Race/Series." That is the very definition of routine. Both of them offer very little, if any detail on the subject himself, other than what I already mentioned. These basic news announcements are not enough. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the statement put on the article that is referencing that piece isn't particularly large here and only really is using it for what I said, that is, noting the fact of his debut in the series. I won't fall back on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS despite how tempting it is (at least this group isn't as bad as WP:OLYMPICS, you should see that). and I do enjoy having a discussion on this really. It's generally hard to find coverage of auto racing drivers from independent or non-"routine" sources. Also again with ROUTINE being an events guideline, if this article was "Participation of Treyton Lapcevich in the ACP series" then I would agree to delete it. But this article is not that. Also, I apologise for the false accusation. I striked it, as mentioned. ~XyNq^t_c 05:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney is correct here, press releases are definitely, unequivocally rejected from consideration for notability; and failing ROUTINE is a widely-accepted rationale at athlete AfDs when referring to general competitor announcements (it is more often called "transactional coverage" in football, cricket, etc.). JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: we need more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the most in-depth independent coverage a subject receives is a handful of sentences reporting he will be standing in for another competitor at a non-notable competition, the subject fails both GNG and BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV has been identified, and without it WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 is failed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as stands still fails to reach the SIGCOV threshold. A search of my own yielded at best glancing or incidental mentions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to reach WP:SIGCOV. Nascar9919 (talk) 20:18, 8 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. ✗plicit 10:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Akbar (film director)

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

Not a single source or claim in the article indicate the subject is notable. Promotional toned article on a non-notable subject. Fails WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bangladesh, and California. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest one,

I tried to find all the notable clues and I found a few. Popular US film news outlets (such as Deadline, Scriptmag, Prnewswire, The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune) have featured various news articles about him. There is no question about his notability. Atiqul Islam Sakib (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent significant coverage to establish notability. The cited sources are interviews without independent analysis by the interviewer, or passing mentions, mostly in regurgitated press releases hyping one upcoming film or another. The deepest, Prothom Alo, contains a scant five sentences about Akbar. The two movie reviews don't blame him explicitly for The Commando being "spectacularly atrocious ... distinguished by an incompetence" and being filled with "egregious implausibilities and cliches" and "pernicious nonsense", but he presumably bears some responsibility. This hagiography cherry picks from the reviews to support the statement that he wrote, directed, and produced the film, but with nary a hint that his effort "will appeal only to connoisseurs of 'how bad can it be?' cinema". --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has directed a globally known superstar Mickey Rourke. Abbasulu (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - has directed a globally known superstar Mickey Rourke. Abbasulu (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you can only !vote once in a deletion debate. ✗plicit 00:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Worldbruce comment. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Worldbruce's explanation of why the sources here aren't enough to satisfy the GNG, and my search didn't find anything that wasn't either a non-independent interview or a passing mention in a review of one of his films. I'm not seeing a strong case that Akbar meets any of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria and no possible alternatives to deletion come to mind, so without higher-quality sourcing, deletion is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:44, 5 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. ✗plicit 11:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petio Semaia

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuvalu national football team. As a two-time captain with mention on the page, an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R is certainly worth WP:PRESERVEing, should someone uncover sources from this small nation's small press options. -2pou (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A reliable source must be independent, AND reliable, AND provide significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards. Ravenswing 21:39, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Uaelasi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see previous 2012 AfD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - This same user has nominated every Tuvulu footballer for deletion (and a few other mostly Oceania countries). The fact is, the reason we can’t find coverage is that the only major news outlet, Fenui News, is not online (it has a Facebook page but that page only gives summaries). A proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc. If there is still no coverage there, then fine, delete. But unless you did such research you are literally wiping out a nation’s sporting history just because they don’t have good internet access, which is unacceptable. A redirect until further research is fine as long as we don’t just wipe out his page. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop lying. I have not nominated "every" article. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. A proper WP:BEFORE involves going to a country's museums and libraries? Is the SPA deliberately trying to be insulting? Ravenswing 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tuvalu national football team: As a frequent captain with mention on the page, this seems like a good alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R is certainly worth WP:PRESERVEing, should someone uncover sources from this small nation's small press options. - 2pou (talk) 18:45, 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. Consensus is for deletion. No prejudice toward creation of a redirect, as suggested by a contributor to this discussion, after the deletion has occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loisio Peni

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing found on him outside of database profile pages Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers per WP:ATD-R as an alternative to deletion now that I came across this list thanks to BeanieFan11 in similar AfDs. -2pou (talk) 20:24, 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 speedy delete. CSD A10 as 2022–23 Borussia Dortmund season was created first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Borussia season

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

For Borussia Dortmund season articles, 2022–23 Borussia Dortmund season fits the traditional name for the article. Also, there are two "Borussia" teams in the 2022–23 Bundesliga. Therefore, just using "Borussia" instead of "Borussia Dortmund" is very confusing. Kingjeff (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 2022–23 Borussia Dortmund season already exists, and this is a duplicate article under an incorrect name. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joseph2302. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Duplicate Article. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for bad duplicate under erroneous name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, dupe.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already an article with the right name, 2022–23 Borussia Dortmund season, which distinguishes it from the equivalent Borussia Mönchengladbach article. Bermicourt (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Giant Snowman 13:26, 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. On notability terms, this was a borderline no consensus. But G5 confirmation makes it a clear delete. If an uninvolved editor believes LCN is notable, they're welcome to create an article. Star Mississippi 18:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Change Network

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

I removed the SPEEDY tag because it was contested. I still believe that delete is in order for violation of WP:ADV and promotion, but we should discuss it as a group and come to consensus. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: both the nominator and Praxidicae (talk · contribs) nominated this article at exactly the same time, causing two nominations to open at once. I've tagged the second nom for G6 and ask Praxidicae to participate here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I fail to see how LCN is notable on it's own, this is nothing more than what appears to be PR but I can't find any meaningful in depth coverage and all that appears to be in the article are stories about Ganz or speaking roles/appearances that mention LCN with nothing truly independent. No objection to redirecting to Ganz PRAXIDICAE💕 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of copying the previous comment from the second nomination. This should be considered basic cleanup only.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, CSD could well have been granted for WP:ADV. Salvage option would be redirect to Ganz. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stated I have no objection to redirecting, provided we get consensus so we don't have to keep going through this, obviously. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already nominated this article once for speedy deletion (yesterday) as promotion, and it was quickly deleted. I see it is now back. The tone is still completely wrong, and still reeks of an advert. Redirect to Ganz until something less promotional can be written. A loose necktie (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is is possible to receive more detailed feedback as to how to make the tone right? Thank you 82.222.98.255 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten into a non promotional tone and removed all links redirecting to LCN's website. I hope it's up-to-standard now. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss the changes made by Spongebobsquarepants246. No consensus on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that delete is the only option to deal with promotional tone. It does still need much work even after the latest changes though. Huggums537 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is it possible to give me more specific tips on how to adjust? I rephrased all parts that sounded subjective and removed all hyperlinks. Please let me know how to further edit. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your asking for help. The best advice I can offer is to look at WP:ADV and its subsequent links. I personally tend to prefer editing over deletion as a result. To me, the bulk of the narrative still reads as promotional material (which points to deletion). Others may agree or disagree, which is why we have a forum like this to discuss it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read several articles and rewritten accordingly, removing all subjective language and any links and using a neutral tone instead.

Please let me know if it reads better now. Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. Is it enough? Maybe... if consensus is that it passes the notability threshhold, I think we can move the WP:COI concerns to those of editing rather than deletion--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus concerning notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for notability as the NGO is featured as a main item (not just a brief mention) on the Commons Library for social change (an increasingly popular and credible source to all entities and resources related to community organizing)

The organization is also referenced in a credible journal inside a research paper presenting it as the main practitioner and teacher of the Public Narrative practice (the paper's topic) initially produced by LCN's founder, Marshall Ganz.

Multiple independent secondary resources reference and present the organization as appears in the article's references.

The entity's notability is not temporary, as it's active, ongoing and has significant on-ground projects around the world.

Based on these facts, my point of view is that the entity is discussed in reliable independent sources and is notable per se, and has not merely inherited notability from its founder. I wish to note that we should not be inclined to judge it "not notable" just because the founder is notable. An entity could have a notable founder and still be sufficiently notable on its own (even if less than the founder) without having inherited notability.

Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see notability as a non issue with this article. Just because it needed some editing work for promotional concerns doesn't mean no pass for notability. Those are two different things, and I think the article has now improved enough to make it a workable project. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 as an contribution by a sockpuppet with the only contributions by others being adding or fixing deletion templates. Jumpytoo Talk 01:52, 6 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 keep per the sources identified during the discussion. Star Mississippi 02:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1833)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Georgia (U.S. state). Fram (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an entry in American Medical Biographies (1920), there's also an obituary viewable on Chronicling America Piecesofuk (talk) 16:26, 28 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:08, 30 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]

Delete WP:BURDEN has failed to prove existence of sources beyond a superficial mention Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was WP:BEFORE carried out? Aside from American Medical Biographies and the Savannah Morning News obit, he has a 2.5 page obituary in Transactions of the Medical Association of Georgia. Note that research is somewhat tricky due to there being several fathers and sons of the same name, all physicians, e.g this subject's father (1805-1835), his son (1863-1920), and his grandson (1895-1955) were all Dr. Thomas Jackson Charltons, and their lives can be traced from journals and newspapers (here's the obituary of T. J. Charlton died 1955), although not all are necessarily Wiki-notable. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:49, 13 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]

Keep per the sources dug up by Piecesofuk and Animalparty. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:05, 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 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rondo Energy

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 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 keep. Star Mississippi 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Albania Friendship Association

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Albania, and Spain. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously there is a bias in what sources would be available online. The organization folded pre-World Wide Web, and as such not much online trace. But let's keep in mind that the organization effectively acted as a de facto embassy. I'm certain that if we had access to archives of Zëri i Popullit in the 1970s, we'd find plenty of mentions and input. https://www.revistarambla.com/ismail-kadare-en-barcelona/ affirms that the association acted as Albanian representation and had monopoly of travel to Albania. However - https://www.jstor.org/stable/41325178 mentions a slightly different name, "Asociación de Amigos del Pueblo Albanés". --Soman (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I also want to stress that as the creator of the article, I was not notified of this AfD. --Soman (talk) 00:53, 29 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. ✗plicit 11:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original Gamer Life

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

Not seeing enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, web search leads to a number of press releases and sponsored articles. The few longer sources I do find appear to discuss related topics, such as DieHardBirdie (Abbe Borg, who appears to have more notability), more than the topic itself. 4 of the 5 cited sources appear to be discussing this individual, and the other is a press release. ASUKITE 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources I could find online are press releases and other primary & primary-sourced stuff as well. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Merko (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and Texas. ASUKITE 03:18, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolic age

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

Article is a stub, and seems non-notable. Little references available on google scholar. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Anderson C, Sloan A, Dupree L, Walker B (June 2019). "Younger Relative Metabolic Age Is Associated with a More Favorable Body Composition and Plant-based Dietary Pattern (P21-038-19)". Curr Devel Nutr. Jun (3(Suppl 1)). doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz041.P21-038-19.
^ Majzoub, A.; Talib, R.A.; Canguven, O.; Elbardisi, H.; Arafa, M.M.; Khalafalla, K.; Alsaid, S.S. (2017). "Metabolic age versus chronologic age effect on the gonadal state". Fertility and Sterility. 108 (3): e46–e47.
^ Kevin O'Sullivan (7 February 2019). "Q&A: Everything you need to know about your metabolic age". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
^ Paolisso, G.; Barbieri, M.; Bonafe, M.; Franceschi, C. (2000). "Metabolic age modelling: the lesson from centenarians". European journal of clinical investigation. 30 (10). Wiley: 888–894.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SailingInABathTub. Clearly a notable topic. SpinningSpark 11:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a little confused by the proposer's comment. I have given it a google scholar search of my own and it turns up almost 1,500 articles, the first 3 pages of which seem to contain articles that are related to the topic that this wikipedia page describes. It is clear that it is a phrase with multiple meanings, however. If Rockstone could explain what they meant I would be grateful. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked the article's sources before looking at the above votes, and similarly came to the conclusion that it passes the GNG. I am glad to see that others agree. Toadspike (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - having reconsidered this, and spending more time looking on Google Scholar, it appears I was wrong. Yes, this is notable. Please close this AFD as keep (or I can). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi Roll

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. I can only use Google translate, but the only plausible source cited appears to be a promotional blog at a glance. ASUKITE 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Japan, and Mexico. ASUKITE 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet NCORP, existing content is extremely poorly sourced, and I could not find additional reliable sources online. Toadspike (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If was notable I'd expect to find references that meet WP:NCORP's criteria - but I haven't been able to find any. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:50, 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 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 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Thomas

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR and I can find no significant coverage. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:37, 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 12:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amish in popular culture

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

Could this be a proper article? Probably. But the current TVTropic listicle is not the way to do it. Like dozens of similar lists of trivial mentions, this poorly referenced piece 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, partially WP:OR and WP:V. Information like "In George Romero's horror film Diary of the Dead (2007), a deaf Amish man appears and helps the main survivors before killing himself, after being infected." is pure noise and not even on topic. Once again, a listing of all media which mentions the term Amish is not the same as analyzing, in an encyclopedic style, the connection between Amish and the popular culture, or their portrayals. This needs to be based on reliable, WP:SIGCOV-meeting secondary sources, and an ORish dupe of https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Amish is not the way to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Religion, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has a valid point when it comes to this article. I support merging all the reliably sourced information to Amish#In popular culture. That way there would still be something about popular culture and the Amish, but it wouldn't need to be its own article. However, this page could also be a redirect so that someone in the future could, if they so chose, follow the advice of the OP, add appropriate reliable sources and avoid the list becoming indiscriminate and falling into original research. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 How does merging refenced trivia like "Crimson Stain is the true story of Edward Gingerich, the only Amish man ever convicted of homicide, that is involuntary manslaughter, while being diagnosed with schizophrenia." or "The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 1 (1994), Season 14, Episode 19 (2003)" (that doesn't even explain the context, I guess Amish appeared in that episode?) would benefit the Amish article? What we need for that section (or the article) are secondary sources that discuss the relation between Amish in pop culture, which is not the same as listing of media in which Amish are mentioned. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but if someone carefully went through the sourced content and organized it in a correct manner, then it could be a substantive section in that article. Historyday01 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01 I do believe I looked and I didn't notice any analysis, just description (as in, "Amish appeared in work X"). If you saw a single sentence that you think is worth rescuing, please tell us which - such content can always be merge to the main Amish article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, brushing past the usual barrage of irrelevant policies brandished above. Like most of these articles it's fairly crap, but not crap enough to delete, and should not be merged back to the main article, from which it was split off. Actually this one is much better than most. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT, although it can be restarted in Amish if someone wishes to make a presentable popular culture section of prose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of trivia with no sourced content actually covering the overall topic. The majority of the listed items are extremely trivial, and the sourcing is poor, so nothing should be preserved or Merged. Rorshacma (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a reason these popular culture sections get split out of the main article. It's because they are full of crap and this is an easy way to clean up the main article without causing a fight. Merging it back in is entirely unproductive. There is no encyclopaedic discussion whatsoever of the portrayal of Amish in popular culture, just a list of plot snippets. A proper encyclopaedia article would make connections between these disparate works. The absence of that makes this a classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Piotrus is quite right that an article at this title might be possible. The is The Amish in the American Imagination for a start and The Amish and the Media for seconds. However, there is nothing usable in the current article either in its prose or its references making it a WP:TNT case. SpinningSpark 11:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is entirely WP:OR, and the policy says that we shouldn't have articles about topics that aren't covered in reliable independent sources. The Amish are definitely a suitable topic, but this spinoff article does not have any WP:SIGCOV. It's conceivable that the sources are out there, but there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this WP:OR, as the article is entirely material that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 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 no consensus. All around terrible discussion. ✗plicit 10:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Samoilenko

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

WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article carries eight sources that seem to provide evidence of notability. —Michael Z. 17:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose he has had a lot of media appearances and it seems he is quite high up within Azov Fourdots2 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article meets WP:GNG and WP:Verifiability. --IgorTurzh (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lot of media appearances. --Alex Blokha (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well documented. Monstarules (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is a pure Nazi and should be erased from wikipedia as well as his battalion from Mariupol. --Frische Frische (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument for deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep many non-independent sources but probably just passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject served as a spokesperson for the soldiers during the siege. He appears on a number of viral YouTube videos, each with close to a million hits. In addition to some coverage in press, this provides a sufficient notability for the person. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lots of the !votes above don't seem to be based in policy, but I do have some concerns about whether or not the individual is WP:BLP1E. Is there any coverage of this individual outside of the context of the Ukrainian defense of the Azovstal Steel Plant? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need consensus on the notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:41, 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 12:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brahim Ghellab

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

Article about non-notable footballer who apparently played 3 matches in the Algerian first division (with CA Batna) in the past, but the article fails WP:GNG. All online coverage in English-, Arabic- and French-language sources is trivial (i.e., database entries). Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Jogurney: - what's the Arabic version of his name? I'd like to have a look. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Arabic-language wiki, it is: براهيم جيلاب (I think that's Ibrahim, not Brahim, but it should yield the same results). Jogurney (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything substantial in any relevant language Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad McCrorey

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

fail to see how McCroery is notable as a tourism chief of a small town, he doesn't meet NPOL in the slightest, and I'm not even sure what the claim is here. He's had a few interviews but the rest of the sources are unreliable or not in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There actually seems to be quite a bit of substantial coverage out there, including this Forbes article and this Atlanta Black Star article, that should be added to the article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Contributor pieces aren't reliable per WP:FORBESCON and the Atlanta Blackstar article is hardly independent coverage. Not to mention they're both basically the same snippets as the New York Daily News article, which again, isn't coverage of him and lastly the Blackstar isn't written by their staff (if they even have any), it's by a "Digital content creator". PRAXIDICAE💕 16:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the Atlanta Blackstar article is hardly independent coverage. What do you mean by this? Also, there is no policy that I know of that an article must be written by staff. Many publications use freelance writers. And what's wrong with being a "digital content creator?" Anyone writing for digital news is a digital content creator, are they not? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our entire WP:RS policy covers this and we do not consider contributor pieces to be reliable sources, that applies beyond just Forbes. And no, PR marketers aka "digital content creators" aren't beacons of journalism. In any case, all of these "articles" about him, even if they were reliable, which they are not, amount to nothing more than WP:BLP1E and hardly even that. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our entire WP:RS policy covers this and we do not consider contributor pieces to be reliable sources, that applies beyond just Forbes Do you mind pointing to where it says that? I'm having trouble finding anything about freelance vs staff in general. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the entire discussion surrounding WP:FORBESCON. Start there, then read WP:RS, WP:V and many discussions on WP:RSN. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's nothing that says that? That's all I wanted to know. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally 14+ different discussions on FORBESCON alone that discuss contributor pieces at length. Pretending it doesn't say that is disruptive. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those discussions are about Forbes.com in particular, and about it being a WP:SELFPUBLISH blog. That does not apply to Atlanta Black Star, or the NYT, or anyone else that uses freelance reporting. It sounds like you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about NYT, which doesn't even appear in this article. As far as self published blogs, WP:SPS also applies but no, we do not accept contributor pieces unless they are proven SMEs in which case we attribute what is said and also WP:RSOPINION applies, which you'd know if you bothered to read any of the discussions that were linked, not to mention WP:UCG which seems the most obvious. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to consider these sources as they pass for reliable sources [30] [31] under WP:AFSL Kwamevaughan (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nope, this is an op ed. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sent two links which pass WP:AFSL you however ignored [32]. I don't know what the end goal is here but I believe the article has been properly sourced and just as @Pyrrho the Skipper said you're just exhibiting a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT instead of a fair judgement. Kwamevaughan (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been properly sourced and thus passes for WP:GNG. The sources provided are credible under WP:RS and WP:AFSL : [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] As such, if there are no opposing comments, then it is best to keep the article. Otherwise, it will be relisted. Further comments should be discussed on the Talk Page. Kwamevaughan (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 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) 10:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.com_contributors

I saw New York Daily News and ABC World News listed as acceptable sources where Forbes contributor was not accepted.

Subject has New York Daily News article which entire article was about subject being in Africa during the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-ghana-harlem-man-stuck-overseas-20200417-qa5pxcbsszgvdd6gaxe5lwomqa-story.html

Subject has 2 separate ABC World News articles with several paragraphs dedicated to him near the end of the articles not just a passing mention discussing racism in America.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/apartheid-jim-crow-george-floyds-death-reverberated-africa/story?id=71556630

https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-americans-leaving-homes-start-black-communities/story?id=73344171

When I searched

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Africa/Africa_Sources_List

Under Ghana they are 8 news affiates listed as credible sites subject has articles about becoming a chief in Ghana in 4 of the 8.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/rashad-mccrorey-installed-tourism-chief-of-elmina/

https://www.gbcghanaonline.com/general/mccrorey-made-tourism-chief/2022/

https://citinewsroom.com/2022/04/black-american-installed-as-nsarahwehene-of-iture-promises-to-invest-in-tourism/

https://3news.com/newly-enstooled-tourism-chief-returns-to-us-to-begin-campaign/

I dont believe anything significant needs to be added to the article but here are two more articles not mentioned supporting subject being an authority figure https://www.okayafrica.com/ghana-chief-of-tourism/

https://skift.com/2022/05/09/ghanas-return-tours-tap-celebrity-african-americans-and-overlook-a-reality/

This article passes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Give Up (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets general notability guidelines, can be expanded per references cited above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:25, 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. ✗plicit 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot Yourself

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

doesn't appear to be a notable work of art, just got some minor attention for being removed. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Work of art has widespread political coverage. work was not created just to get attention but to bring attention to the gravity of the subject's crimes against humanity. And the artist Dmitry Iv is exhibited internationally.^[1] Strattonsmith (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Politics. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.agora-gallery.com/exhibition/Chelsea_2_16_2021-Artist-Dmitry_Iv.aspx

Delete - Not a notable work of public art, it received some press due to its removal, but this does not mean it meets our notability criteria. It has not had indepth coverage over an extended period of time. There are hundreds of thousands of works of public art out there and it seems that the coverage of this one is trivial, the citations seem to reflect be the same report covered by the New York Post (not a great source) and the last citation is a mirror of that as indicated at the bottom of the "article": This entry was posted in nypost. WP:DOGBITESMAN possibly WP:TOOSOON. As an event, it does not seem to have lasting significance, fails WP:LASTING. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the coverage was more for the work's content than its' removal. That said perhaps it was too short an impact and maybe it will reappear, so perhaps right now it is too soon.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see "widespread political coverage" contrary to the claim above. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I follow art news, Ukraine news, and political news, but haven't heard about it anywhere other than here. (Not that whether I've heard of it is necessarily a sign of notability per se, just that it doesn't appear to have been that widely covered.)Jahaza (talk) 20:25, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgın (given name)

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

There are no articles about people with this name. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not a valid reason for deletion. Here it is in on Trwiki. Article is notable and could be translated to English. Kadı Message 18:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. A fencer who won a junior European championship does not satisfy WP:NSPORTS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has independent and reliable sources which is required for WP:GNG. [39] Kadı Message 17:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's one short article in something called Timeturk and one passing mention. That's far from good enough for GNG. See Category:Turkish female foil fencers, for example (though her specialty apparently is the sabre): all participated in the Olympics. She, on the other hand, shared a bronze medal in a satellite tournament of the 2014–15 Fencing World Cup. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This fails as a list of people (empty list) and it fails as an encyclopaedic discussion of the name per se. The content consists only of its (unsourced) meaning in Turkish (the link to the town should be a "see also" at best). I'm all for having articles on names on Wikipedia, but in its current state this is in WP:NOTDIC territory so a soft redirect to wikt:Ilgın is a solution. SpinningSpark 10:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought those types of redirects to other languages are discouraged, since the lack of a red link gives the impression that a en.WP article exists. H:FOREIGNLINK discusses using {{interlanguage link}}.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: The link I suggested is not an iterlanguage link – it is a link to the English Wiktionary. SpinningSpark 12:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my mistake.—Bagumba (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikt comment A Wiktionary link is a better alternative to keeping—I still prefer delete (see below)—but we don't fully meet the WP:POINTWIKT policy either (bold for emphasis):
For Wikipedia articles which could only ever be dictionary definitions and keep being re-created and re-deleted, or which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment, it is possible to effectively "salt" them with a soft redirect to Wiktionary
—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any en.WP bios of people with the name, this is not a standalone name lists, as allowed per MOS:DABNAME and consistent with WP:APO/S. As a pure article on the name, we need significant coverage, else this is a permastub. Per the guideline WP:WHYN:
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn’t need to have articles about people with the name to be notable. It is referenced and can be expanded upon.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:23, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadram Be Careful Brotheru

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

PROD'd (proposed deletion) twice. Only notable source is this review. This source talks about a song. This source says that the teaser was released. This review is unreliable (from an IP). All in all, not enough sources (such as production). One more notable review is needed. DareshMohan (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFILM / GNG requirements. Cannot find any reliable reviews in my WP:BEFORE search in both English and Telugu -- Ab207 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 15:19, 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 keep. Less Unless (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Noise (game show)

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sourcing found. Previous AFD closed as "keep" due to addition of a single source which turned out to be a press release combined with a dash of WP:ITSNOTABLE. No better sourcing found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game show which lasted one season.TH1980 (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Conway, Polly (2022-03-16). "The Noise. TV review by Polly Conway, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The review notes: "It's fun to watch the kid teams work together to make the least amount of noise -- they take it very seriously and it's a premise that hasn't really been used on any other game show. There's a good amount of tension, making the show suspenseful, but not too much that younger kids can't handle it. The Noise is a simple idea, but it's a lot of fun and kid viewers will see how focus and teamwork can bring about success."
2. Robbins, Caryn (2017-10-12). "Fremantle Brings Two New Game Shows Created for Kids to Universal Kids". Broadway World. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article provides 222 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Silence will be golden as FMNA premieres The Noise, a new high-tech game show that will challenge kids to be quiet. In addition, the company will premiere a kids' version of the cherished game show format Beat the Clock. The Noise, premiering on Universal Kids on Monday, October 23 at 7pm ET/6pm Central with back-to-back episodes, is based on a popular game show format stemming from FremantleMedia Asia's partnership with Fuji TV in Japan. Hosted by Faruq Tauheed (BattleBots), kids will be challenged to complete various tasks without making a sound. Two teams comprised of two kids each will compete against each other with the ultimate sound detector, the "Noise-O-Meter," constantly listening. Each challenge involves the kids completing a task, such as opening a bag of chips or hanging a set of wind chimes, as quietly as possible. ..."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Goff, Leslie Jaye (2017-10-12). "FremantleMedia N.A. Sells Two Game Shows to Universal Kids". Broadcasting & Cable. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "The Noise, premiering on Universal Kids Monday, October 23 at 7 p.m. ET/6 p.m. Central with back-to-back episodes, is based on a format stemming from FremantleMedia Asia’s partnership with Fuji TV in Japan. Hosted by Faruq Tauheed (BattleBots), kids will be challenged to complete various tasks without making a sound, with the “Noise-O-Meter” constantly listening. The less noise they make, the more points they earn. FMNA’s Mullin and Joni Day are executive producers and Michael Dietz is the showrunner. A Noise-O-Meter app on iTune and Google Play allows families to keep the silent challenge going after the show ends."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Noise to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 22:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found and detailed in this discussion such as Commonsense Media review, Broadway World article and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 31 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 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mwashinga

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage. Ploni (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Christianity, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He has a significnat body of publications, albeit apparently Adventist in character, which is not quite mainstream. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising WP:AGF the article references a number of reliable sources offline including national newspapers, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many sources are and can be found to support the article. Literally, almost no reason to delete. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 03:14, 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. ✗plicit 10:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Farid

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

Being an astronaut candidate is not in itself sufficient to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Reads like a résumé more than anything. – Ploni (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-leaning. As WP:SCHOLAR, notability is not established. I don't see him selected for any mission or formally selected as an astronaut candidate, either - can't find him [[here or elsewhere.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see him quoted in reliable independent sources fails WP:N PaulPachad (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-leaning - He's in Arabic language news as follows:

here primary source
The only Egyptian and Arab in the German Space (does include an interview)
Egyptian astronaut Ahmed Farid: NASA borrowed the name “Mars” from the ancient Egyptians I think this is significant coverage

In summary two of these involve him, but there is also details that are editorial, so I think overall this could justify a keep. I am unqualified to assess Arabic language media, so I'm assuming they are reliable, they seem reliable to me. CT55555 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of those links are either direct interview of him, or just as a minor figure. I do not know about anything about Egypt; I am from Nepal myself, but believe me when I say that in developing countries like ours, a person would get an interview and be featured in multiple news articles just for getting a scholarship in MIT (which I have once witnessed) and then fade into obscurity after that. Having said that, it would probably be better if someone from Wikiproject Egypt could provide a comment or information in this regard. Shirsakbc (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 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) 10:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the hits I get are for an artist with the same name. Unsure how notable this fellow is. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few sources in Scholar, news, etc. --mikeu ^talk 18:35, 31 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) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omotunde E. G. Johnson

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

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR, no WP:SIGCOV, the sources do not appear to substantiate notability. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a few well-cited works (336,122,91) and a clutch of respectable ones (59,55,51,40); most date from c. 1970–1995 when citation density was considerably lower, particularly given that the topic isn't all that citation heavy, afaik. The subject looks to have multiple books, which should be checked for reviews; one is held by 1,294 libraries. Will try to do more research on this in the morning. ETA He wrote the (long) entry on the African Union in The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy which doesn't speak directly to our guidelines but suggests he's regarded as an expert. ETA2 I note our article on h-index states that Google Scholar has "limited coverage of pre-1990 publications". Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In addition to echoing what Espresso Addict mentioned above, I have added a number of books which are authored by the subject. It appears that the subject comfortably meets criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Cirton (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC for me as the citation count is low. Chance of meeting WP:AUTHOR is weak. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In agreement with Espresso Addict and Cirton above, it appears the subject comfortably meets critera 1 for both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. For the latter, only an important or authoritative figure on African Economics would write the entry on the African Union in The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy.User:Inamo11 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify five of the ten reference are by him, 3 are profiles, one is a press-release and one is a book from a reputable publisher; doesn't give me confidence he is notable. He might meet N-Author. The books are well cited, but all IMF publications are cited, which doesn't give me confidence either. I couldn't find reviews. I was currently in the process of reviewing at npp and planning to draft it once I read the read the references, and noticed the Afd tag. Currently he fails WP:SIGCOV. They references are real mess. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going with a formal keep, per my comment previously. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Based off my search of my university database, I'm finding stuff he has written, not stuff written about him or his books (the portal has a "book review" search parameter). Same with Google searches. The Sierra Leone Telegraph likes to pull him for quotes, for what it's worth. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:02, 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 keep. Star Mississippi 19:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery County Board of Commissioners

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

Non-notable. All sources are primary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page can be improved through non-primary source such as [40],[41], [42] and [43]. The Commission is in charge of PA's third largest County and has had a number of notable members too including Josh Shapiro and Bruce Castor. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of material about the Commission. Also primary sources may be used, but can not be used for determining notability. The only question here is whether the Commission is a valid spinoff from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania or whether the information should be on the primary page. --Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 31 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) 14:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is insufficient content to support standalone article and a reader would not gain anything clicking through from Primary article.Slywriter (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, if necessary, merge. It's the executive of a large county. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. A legislative body of substantial significance. BD2412 T 06:29, 13 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 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 02:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young Benjie

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

I found no sources relating to this song, so it does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The helper5667 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it has the same problem:[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. Nobody has challenged valereee's improvements, so I take silence as equalling consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Friendly

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

There are some reliable sources about a commercial, but no in-depth coverage. It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Health and fitness, Organizations, and Israel. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and only mentioned in passing in the independent references provided on page. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article got better by improving it Adam080 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How should I improve this article to avoid being deleted? Is it that it does not have enough reliable sources? What do you mean there is no in-depth coverage? Adam080 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm improving the article! :) Adam080 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No deleting this!!! It is a good article!!!. The organization and its founder Omri Paz have lots and lots of coverage in Hebrew! Their materials and lectures have been viewed millions of times!!! Like look at these sources: [44][45][46]חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But maybe we should try to find articles that the main subject is not vegan friendly, that way it is independant Adam080 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's really the same here, Omri Paz is Vega Friendly and Vegan Friendly is Omri Paz. And these sources cover Vegan Friendly activity. חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seeing decent covergae, and some already added, not really seeing grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are the reliable sources with significant coverage independent of the subject, as required by WP:NCORP? MarioGom (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Last chance to reach consensus!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've gone through and heavily edited, and I think this is a notable organization. There's sigcov in multiple RS, including outside of Israel. valereee (talk) 17:19, 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 delete. ✗plicit 02:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Conrad Therrien

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:NPROF. Ploni (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Architecture, and Museums and libraries. Ploni (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to meet the subject notability guidelines mentioned above. It also fails the WP:GNG, with three primary sources, one non-sigcov source, and an article in which the subject is mentioned twice, none of which count towards the GNG. Finally, the article is written a little too much like a resume. Toadspike (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Head of a curatorial department at the Guggenheim is definitely something that could lead to notability, either through WP:GNG or WP:PROF, but we don't have evidence that it has in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 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 redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. ✗plicit 12:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch and Burn

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

Only found a couple fleeting mentions in unrelated articles on ProQuest. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 12 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 00:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found minimal coverage, so a plausible redirect to either List of programs broadcast by MTV or The Bomb-itty of Errors might be in order. The most in-depth coverage I've found is:

Are you looking for something different to watch on TV? Are you tired of the same old formula television? Then tune in to MTV's newest series, "Scratch & Burn." A combination of sketch comedy, rap and hip-hop, "Scratch & Burn" is an entertaining half-hour of music and laughs.

The show stars Jaq, Dragon, GQ and Red Dragon, otherwise known as the Bomb-itty boys. This talented troupe writes and performs its own material. They have a unique comedy style and irreverent take on everything from pop culture to politics, bringing a welcome freshness to television comedy and to MTV, which, until the success of "The Osbournes," was beginning to look like a parody of itself.

"Scratch & Burn" is new, creative and entertaining. It's like a "Saturday Night Live" for a new generation. When you are home on Saturday night and wondering what to watch, flip over to MTV and try on "Scratch & Burn" for size. The show airs Saturday nights at 9:30 and repeats Sundays at 11:30 a.m. and Fridays at 6:30 p.m.^[1]

There is also a brief mention in an article about the creators of The Bomb-itty of Errors: "That is where the story went a little off the tracks; their MTV show, an attempt to translate Bomb-itty to a televised sketch comedy format, did not take off. Called Scratch and Burn, it crashed and burned, lasting just five episodes."^[2] So a plausible redirect to The Bomb-itty of Errors might be warranted, with an added sentence or two on the legacy and spin-off. But List of programs broadcast by MTV might be more appropriate if the TV show is substantially different from the play, which seems likely. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Spar, Mindy (November 3, 2002). "TV stations gearing up for big night". The Post and Courier. (Charleston, SC). p. E1 – via NewsBank.
^ McKinley, Jesse (13 June 2004). "The 'Bomb-itty' Team Sends in the Nerds". The New York Times.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. Show doesn't pass GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 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.

[1] Jay Garmon (21 February 2006). "Geek Trivia: The math behind the myth". TechRepublic. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[2] Anna Davis (7 October 2013). "One plus one equals Doh! How The Simpsons can teach children maths". Evening Standard. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[3] Dan Solomon (1 February 2022). "The Secret Story of the Texas Philanthropist Who Helped Solve Math's Toughest Riddle". TexasMonthly. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[4] Kevin Knudson (20 August 2015). "The Math Of Star Trek: How Trying To Solve Fermat's Last Theorem Revolutionized Mathematics". Forbes. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[5] Simon Singh (22 September 2013). "The Simpsons' secret formula: it's written by maths geeks". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[6] Robert Krulwich (11 May 2014). "Did Homer Simpson Actually Solve Fermat's Last Theorem? Take A Look". NPR. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[Anderson2019-7] Anderson C, Sloan A, Dupree L, Walker B (June 2019). "Younger Relative Metabolic Age Is Associated with a More Favorable Body Composition and Plant-based Dietary Pattern (P21-038-19)". Curr Devel Nutr. Jun (3(Suppl 1)). doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz041.P21-038-19.

[8] Majzoub, A.; Talib, R.A.; Canguven, O.; Elbardisi, H.; Arafa, M.M.; Khalafalla, K.; Alsaid, S.S. (2017). "Metabolic age versus chronologic age effect on the gonadal state". Fertility and Sterility. 108 (3): e46–e47.

[9] Kevin O'Sullivan (7 February 2019). "Q&A: Everything you need to know about your metabolic age". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

[10] Paolisso, G.; Barbieri, M.; Bonafe, M.; Franceschi, C. (2000). "Metabolic age modelling: the lesson from centenarians". European journal of clinical investigation. 30 (10). Wiley: 888–894.

[11] ttps://www.agora-gallery.com/exhibition/Chelsea_2_16_2021-Artist-Dmitry_Iv.aspx

[12] Spar, Mindy (November 3, 2002). "TV stations gearing up for big night". The Post and Courier. (Charleston, SC). p. E1 – via NewsBank.

[13] McKinley, Jesse (13 June 2004). "The 'Bomb-itty' Team Sends in the Nerds". The New York Times.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[2]