Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 23	June 25 >

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Powervision TV

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

Whole article relied on a single reliable source. Fails GNG Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and there's precious little else out there. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with nominator Onmyway22 talk 14:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above, unable to find any references that establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've included the required citations for this topic. it is a notable television channel. It is requested to check this page and remove the deletion label. Arun Biju (talk) 10:16, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Pradère

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

Autobiographical, no evidence that subject meets WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and France. Ploni (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the presented coverage is tangential to the subject and is about BETC Design in the main. Out there in the interwebs there's this and [1] but they're interviews in, effectively, trade media and won't push Christophe over the WP:GNG line, which is a shame 'cos he seems like a talented chap. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:43, 24 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. Looks like some work has been done during the AFD to improve sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EtonHouse International Education Group

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

Fails GNG and written to promote the subject Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had removed the promotional and irrelevant statements and copied from a version that was kept after the previous AFD. Current state might need a bit more work but I think it is enough to be a Keep at this state. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a quick search and there are news articles about this group so I'm pretty sure we can establish notability. I will admit it will take some work to get this article cleaned up. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does the existence of news articles have to do with the notability of the subject? By policy, Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.174.212.211.187 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but in this case if you review the edits I made to the article I included newspaper articles that were covering the schools they run which is allowed WP:MULTSOURCES. Also I included business reviews of the CEOs leadership as well a few other articles covering this group and its role in the language education market. Based off all of these I'm pretty confident that notability has been established WP:ORGDEPTH, but I will admit there is more work that needs to be done on this article. I'll try to update it some more later today and organize the sources more clearly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seeing no issues with the article as it is written at this revision. – robertsky (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Caton

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant coverage. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, this was interesting. While WP:OUTCOMES tells us that, indeed, "Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable", Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom has over 200 subcategories, most of which are embassies and all of which, as per a dip in and out of a few of 'em, are bluelinked. On that basis, yes yes I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF, we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable. Not forgetting that WP:OUTCOMES isn't policy and consensus clearly favours the ambassador, I'm going keep here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A few editors churning out huge amounts of junk articles that fail every and any inclusion criteria is not how we build concensus. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, and was built initially with no inclusion criteria at all, so the existence of articles in and of themselves shows neither consensus nor that such articles conform to inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no, ambassadors are not default notable, and we routinely delete articles on ambassadors that lack sourcing to meet GNG. GNG is not met here, and the argument that we should keep this undersourced article because of other articles that do not meet inclusion criteria is not a good one and should not be given any consideration at all. In the case of UK ambassadors to Finland we only have articles on about half of them. A large number of ambassadors are people who are notable for othere things, so the number of articles we have on ambassadors should not be used to show that ambassadors as a class are notable, and with about half of the UK ambassadors to Finland lacking articles, the argument that we should keep this article just because we have many other articles on ambassadors completely falls on its face.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Finland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of Finnish media don't reveal much of relevance. There's an extremely short STT -supplied story in Helsingin Sanomat [2]. She's also mentioned in (and has a quote in) another story in Turun Sanomat, but is not the subject [3]. But that seems to be it. Curiously, there's a story about a British ambassador named Victoria Caton, but I can't figure out what is going on with the name. In any case, that story isn't much in GNG terms either: basically "she visited Turku and we asked for a few comments about Tony Blair. As for we are clearly considering that Ambassadors, at least British ones, ARE notable, no. Ljleppan (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, and WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanim Hayat Khan Rajit

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

Sources cant be verified. There is no significant coverage. Violation of BLP Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, as well as not passing WP:ANYBIO #3. Réunion (talk!) 04:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, here's a thing. The sources CAN be verified (Google translate, folks!) and they do indeed confirm this gentleman existeth and is indeed a musician - a player of the sarod and from a relatively well known and celebrated family of Bangladeshi musicians. That's the good news. The bad news is that they're pretty poor sources and don't stand up to WP:GNG - and don't back up the vast majority of material in the article, which is pretty much OR all the way and likely written by someone close to the subject. Whether we need articles about Bangladeshi sarod players in enwiki, I do not know. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All information sources are real. You can simply google Tanim Hayat Khan Rajit. This guy represented Bangladesh in international platform in Commonwealth Games Australia in 2018 and the interview with SBS Australia is a significant proof of that. Strong evidence as such and few more are good enough. Otherwise, I'm happy to reduce the content as you are saying is too much without backing up. Well, not every single information can be backed up. You need to understand the authenticity by looking at one or two. That's the professional judgment you are required to apply. this guy also performed internationally in USA and that evidence was provided too! I found a lot of celebrates wiki page with almost none or one reference. TAFEAN (talk) 01:25, 30 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epworth Forest, Indiana

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

Actually the Epworth Forest Conference Center, which describes itself as "a Christian summer camp in northern Indiana." It's run by the Methodists, but though it's a century old, it is otherwise not well-known: I got clickbait-level GHits on it. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tippecanoe Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana. This is difficult. I'm going off the guide that inhabited places have inherent notability per WP:GEOLAND, because it's hard to find sources on this that aren't too affiliated; this is circumstantial. It's true that it's a Christian summer camp in that it sort of fulfills those functions; it's not true that it's merely a camp. First we find real estate listings categorized under Epworth Forest: [4] [5]. We also see this page giving some history on the subject; it's essentially a religious summer vacation spot/retreat center/conference center. It's clear, though, that it's populated, and certainly more populated in the summer. We also see archived photographs of the area from the 40s: [6] (also see similar items on the right). Under WP:GEOLAND, this has to then fulfill WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to, though there may be some old newspaper clipping out there that I either don't have access to or didn't find. I urge against deletion though owing to some inherent notability; redirects then should target the next highest polity. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 09:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see we do have a real estate locale here but it's still non-notable,a nd redirecting to larger areas is almost always a bad idea because those articles don't say anything about the place. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A neighborhood apparently but not a notable one. Doen't belong in the township article either. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage has been put forth to suggest that this is anything other than a church came and a similarly named housing development. Neither of those gets the GEOLAND pass, no indication that it meets WP:GNG, and a redirect would not be appropriate because it would be WP:UNDUE to mention this location in a township or county article. Hog Farm _Talk 13:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Fakhro

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

Written to promote the company. Sources are not reliable Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBA Fakhro is a holding company, and it has more than 70 subsidiary companies.

https://mbafakhro.com/what-we-do/

Kindly avoid the deletion of MBA Fakhro page. Arun Biju (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible WP:PROMO. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources from top news websites that bizbahrain.com, bahrainthisweek.com, saudigazette.com.sa, twentyfoursevennews.com, dayofdubai.com, newsofbahrain.com etc. Kindly consider to withdraw this page deletion. Arun Biju (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is written from the company's viewpoint. Corporate notability is based on what third parties say about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance and support. I will check and remove all the sentences written from the company's viewpoint. Arun Biju (talk) 04:27, 27 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 keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Lee

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

~~Unable to find any significant independent coverage.~~ – Ploni (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Hong Kong. Ploni (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Her 2016 exhibit was reviewed in the SCMP, which is probably significant enough to meet WP:GNG. –Ploni (talk) 03:59, 24 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) 10:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Dittman

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

Does not seem particularly notable as either a publisher or critic, and was unable to find independence coverage of any significance. – Ploni (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: I had not noticed that the article was previously nominated for deletion. It doesn't look like the article has been improved since then, but the arguments in favour of keeping may still hold up. –Ploni (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's here seems pretty unbalanced and is overwhelmingly negative to Dittman. I removed some material that was a violation of WP:BLP, an assertion stood up on a 404 page as a source, but I'd question whether the majority of content in this short article is WP:DUE - something I'll leave to editors with an interest in the subject. As for WP:GNG, I have my very deep doubts, note the previous AfD was undersubscribed and don't think the sources on offer confer notability to a writer of movie reviews with very little indepth coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically he is a film reviewer who gets tabloidy mentions for doing reviews that do not in most people's views conform to the quality of the reviews. There is not really any high quality coverage. Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone who is ever briefly mentioned somewhere. I do not see how he actually meets any reasonable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD and sources existing within the article. Artw (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The number of sources a WP:BEFORE check comes up with is lengthy, especially in the books department. This book covers him across three pages. He is mentioned briefly here, has interviewed Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds as mentioned in this book, his interview of Schwarzenegger is mentioned in this book and the list continues on from here. He is covered significantly here by CNN, mentioned briefly by the New York Post here and again the list continues. Countless hits all over the internet. The article needs work, but AFD is not cleanup. Notability guideline is easily satisfied. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, with the CNN and the other mentions, passes notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep grudgingly. While Dittman is a shitstain in the world of film criticism, he’s gained enough notoriety for that over the last two decades that it makes him notable enough for an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether he's made a positive contribution to society or not, he has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu (1989 film)

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

Lacks reliable sources, cannot find reviews at The Indian Express archives [7] or Kalki [8]. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 24 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 13:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H Now Entertainment

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

Non notable entertainment channel. Fails WP:ORG. AHatd (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. AHatd (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 24 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 13:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAB TV (Pakistan)

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

Neither qualify WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. AHatd (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. AHatd (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs to be expanded, but it's proper broadcast television station in Pakistan with a government-issued TV license (one of not too many), so I think we should keep it around for the sake of completion. Plus, we don't want people looking it up and finding only a page on Sony Sab based out of India and assuming they are the same thing, especially considering the relationship between the two countries. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, to find a third opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holding a license does not confer notability. There's none in evidence in the article and none I could find online. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, without any refs online, definitely does not meet GNG. VickKiang (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DeVosMax is in error; see WP:EXISTS. Not notable. FalconK (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Noel

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

Fails WP:GNG as there is a lack of in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. An internet search yields very little, even when using his full given name. He has worked with notable artists, but this does not make him notable himself. If suitable sources are found, I'd be happy to retract. JTtheOG (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Illinois. JTtheOG (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncontroversially fails WP:GNG, Allmusic/Discogs doesn't cut it, search throws up nothing. Quite fun, "In October 2012 Gabe toured Poland with Austin Peralta, his last solo performances before his death" but then Gabe goes on to perform again in 2014, so we can only assume his death was a metaphorical one on stage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the last performances by Austin Peralta before his death. Gabe still walks among the living, but perhaps not among the notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just couldn't resist the syntax/grammar... ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the world of AfDs for musicians, we occasionally see journeymen support musicians like this and it can be unfortunate. Mr. Noel has indeed worked with a lot of notable musicians, behind the scenes as a songwriter, arranger, backing band member, etc. ([9]) If he has made an honest living in this fashion, kudos to him. But for his article here, notability is not inherited from the famous people he has backed. I can find nothing reliable and significant on him and his career in their own right, and most of his visibility is only in the credits for other people's works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 24 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. While the keep/delete votes are equal, the delete voters have the policy-based argument here. The nominator has challenged that this topic does not satisfy WP:GNG, and in 3 weeks still no one was able to come up with a single source that demonstrates the notability of the topic. Notability must be demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not primary sources). Primary sources can be used for the purpose of supporting information in an article, but primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. If it cannot be shown that a topic is notable after an exhaustive search for sources, then it must be deleted per WP policy. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar–Mexico relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the supplied sources are primary from the Mexican government. There isn't much to these relations, no agreements, no embassies, trade is very low at USD9 million. Only 1 foreign minister visit and that was to a UN conference to Mexico. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as mentioned on numerous occasions previously, all relations are valid. You mention only one ministerial visit (from Madagascar to Mexico) but fail to mention the visits from Mexico to Madagascar. I've also added another Malagasy Ministerial visit to Mexico. The fact that most supplied sources are governmental is not an issue, as most countries local papers do not always mention diplomatic relevant news unless it's a "highly important nation" such as the United States for example. But I fail understand your motives. You never try to improve an article, but rather would simply have an article expelled from Wikipedia than add and improve it. Again, I feel like this will not the last encounter we'll have in a similar situation in the future. Aquintero82 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inherent notability of bilateral articles. In fact 100s have been deleted. You haven't addressed how this meets WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Numerous references, makes me believe there are more to be found to help expand and grow this article.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 of the 12 sources are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a concern? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:PRIMARY, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." LibStar (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as there are is paucity of reliable independent sources. Almost every citation is from the government of Mexico and thus non-independent. The UN source is used simply to support the statement that Madagascar attended COP 16 in Mexico, but this has nothing to do with Mex-Mad relations, and shouldn't really belong in this article. The other non-government of Mexico source (BBC) is used simply note that France introduced vanilla to Mexico, which is only glancingly related to Mex-Mad relations. Yilloslime (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With enough time, I would agree. But with that many sources and the fact that this article feels forgotten, it seems like there is a possibility that independent sources do exist out there and it's at least worth a search for them before deletion occurs. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched for independent sources? What is the result of your search? WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on this subject, so I am willing to assume someone more knowledgeable about Mexican diplomacy, Madagascar diplomacy, diplomacy in general or other related subjects would likely be able to find independent sources given enough time. If they can't, then the topic can't be salvaged, but I am curious what the harm is in letting someone out there step up and try to save this and other articles like it. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us on Wikipedia tend to fall back on the notion that every country uses a "developed country" mentality on independent sources. For many countries in the world, particularly those not in Europe, Canada, United States or Australia (to name a few) primary sources, especially relating to governmental and international relations; come from government sources. It is difficult to find independent sources when relating to what many countries consider to be governmental matters.

Below is a extract regarding Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. "Primary" does not mean "bad"

The sources provided are accurate as per the information cited in the article. As I've stated in previous conversations before, diplomatic relations between nations evolve and more information will be made available. As it becomes more available, I will update the articles that I personally watch and they are relevant. Aquintero82 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think a consensus can be reached regarding this article at this time. If additional references can't be added in a few months, I may change my viewpoint, but I agree with Aquintero82's perspective that particular references should be judged primarily on their merit independent from other references from that source (unless that source has an established track record of being untrustworthy.) Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:35, 12 July 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!} 02:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Kofela

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merina Joe

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Donga

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Aihunu

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 25 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. Sourcing suggested to exist has never been sufficient to keep, but there's not a particularly strong delete consensus here either, but I find one exists. Star Mississippi 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Tower (Milwaukee)

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

I see nothing notable about this building, a WP:MILL apartment building. Even the article characterizes it as "one of several large apartment buildings on Prospect Avenue". MB 02:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Wisconsin. MB 02:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. I've added a reference, which refers to a newspaper article from construction. While I haven't been able to find any newspaper coverage with newspapers.com, the source I added suggests that it does exist. Thus, I think there is enough coverage out there to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a building entirely undistinguished on its own, entirely lacking in independent notability. WP:MILL expands fairly well on what is trivially non-notable but we do not need it to see what is not going on. We find no sources; we only find "there-must-be-sources" type of arguments. And claims that "it exists". -The Gnome (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Celebrated architecture? No. Outstanding of its kind? As pointed out above, 'one of a number' so, No. Fails WP:GNG? Yes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those things has anything to do with GNG... NemesisAT (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they did. It's not architecturally significant, it's not outstanding AND it fails WP:GNG. Trust that's clearer. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:39, 15 July 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 clear. However if someone thinks that sourced information should be discussed elsewhere, I'm happy to provide the text for merger/attribution. Star Mississippi 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Gordon

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

This painting has absolutely no notability for a stand-alone article at WP. The sources only cite references that back generalized comments about the artist; not the actual painting. Any analytical content about the painting is purely "personal opinion" or "original research". The section Formal qualities have no references to back any claims. The section Purpose is pure speculation; and references cited do not back any claims for notable inclusion but mere mention of the artist, not the subject. The section Background is once again merely a personal opinionated take on the painting with absolutely no sources to back claims, again. This painting is of no significance and if there is anything to be mentioned about it, the content could easily merge with the artist's page. However, without sources to back any of the claims in this article, I can't see it being mentioned for any plausible reason. Maineartists (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete An engine search rendered no relevant or notable sources that review, discuss, analyze or even mention the painting other than what has been created in this article at WP and Wiki-linked. No historical significance or background for inclusion can be found in any source that would constitute inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the previous AfD for this article, I objected to deletion, and so did one other contributor. The article was kept. That didn't mean that I thought the article is any good: It's terrible. None of the online sources cited in the article mention the painting. The article if full of outright nonsense: "By 1972, Neel was nearing the end of her life..." Not true, she died 12 years later, in 1984. "Dana Gordon depicts an everyday man, presumably of middle or lower class. " Dana Gordon is a painter and writer, born in 1944. The article claims that the work is owned by the Neel Estate, but that failed verification: [10] The entire article is WP:OR, and none of it appears to be supported by RS. One day, it may be possible to write a properly sourced article, but the current version must be entirely rewritten or deleted. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As I said before - Strong painting by Alice Neel who had a major retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A portrait of an important writer and artist who has been a prolific essayist and art critic in recent years...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Read this by art critic James Panero: [11]...Modernist (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernist I think Alice Neel is one of the best and most important American modern painters, and I'd love it if we had articles on many of her paintings, but: Is there anything in this article that you think can be kept? Vexations (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Modernist That didn't hold water then, and it won't hold water now. Personal opinion does not warrant an article. I did read the article 3 times before nominating it for AfD. The article is about Dana Gordon the artist, and doesn't even mention the painting. As well: online sources regarding the "retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art" do not mention this painting. There is no significant or relevant sources that back your claim of its importance. Maineartists (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Also, the painting wasn't in the MET retrospective. [12] Do we know where it is? I've searched auction records, but can't find it. Vexations (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  We do not. The article only speculates: "... the painting was most likely commissioned by the man for his own personal ownership, before being handed over to the Alice Neel Estate." The inline citations do not even back this claim. Maineartists (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Dana Gordon is notable as an artist and writer. The article should reflect that and engage his complex biography...needs some competent editorial work. See this link...[13]...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Alice Neel and James Panero are telling us that Dana Gordon is notable. The article definitely needs improvement though...Modernist (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article is not about Dana Gordon. 2. "I think" is not a reason for inclusion. Supply references to back your claim. 3. The article needs references. End of story. Maineartists (talk) Maineartists (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does this link have to do with the painting by Alice Neel? The segment on CBS Sunday Morning - "Artist Alice Neel, a collector of souls" last year never mentioned this painting; yet talked about her vast production of portraits. I'm not sure you understand how articles at WP actually work. Dana Gordon is not notable as an artist or writer. Otherwise, he would have his own article at WP. But that is completely beside the point. There is not one source that makes this painting (or its artist) notable. The link you provided is the artist's own website. The reference itself is mere promotional and not even a source for this painting or its article. Maineartists (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The painting itself lacks significant coverage in independent sources. The critical commentary on the painting is all original research. Clearly fails WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understand Modernist's frustration since Alice Neel is an exceptionally important artist, and Dana Gordon an interesting artist and writer. However, if I'm not mistaken, the article is not about Gordon, it's about a portrait of Gordon, and the painting itself is not notable. It does seem like WP:OR, and that there significant coverage of the painting does not exist (at least not yet). If sources on the painting can be found, I'm happy to change my !vote, or if enough sources on Gordon himself can be found to create a stand alone article on him, then the painting can be included in that article. At this time it does not meet WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Torpey

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. One notable role on One Life to Live, but nothing else of note afterward. Google search yields nothing substantive. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 1 July 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. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in the discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Math Suks

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Didn't chart, wasn't reviewed independently of the album, only got brief attention from one math journal and a roast on Colbert. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mathematics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. The song comes up with scattered mentions or reviews of the album in total, nothing for the song in particular. For all we have here, it could just be transposed into a section in the article about the album. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in Cincinnati Enquirer [14], Orlando Sentinel [15] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, as the article is in terrible shape, and even its respective album article has hardly any prose. The current article has almost no substance - I started trimming out the overly wordy, flowery language, but stopped when I realized I'd trim it down to almost nothing if I kept going. I have no prejudice towards someone spinning it back out if someone decides to actually write a substantive article, as it's name did seem to garner some coverage. But unless someone does a massive rewrite/expansion in the coming days, the spin out isn't currently warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the language "overly wordy, flowery"? The article is not an artistic review. It is about the vision of math conveyed by the song and the reaction of math teachers to it.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article, upon my first read of it, read as:

Consistent with its stated theme, the song lyrics are largely an emotional catharsis; mathematical terms are used only in a very superficial way. Presumably for that reason, the song seems to have little appeal to mathematicians, and even less to mathematics teachers.

This framing is insane for what this is. It's a guy with a guitar grumbling about math being hard, which mathematicians didn't like. There's way more concise (and better) ways to convey that message. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beach House on the Moon. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Not enough independent coverage aside from the 2 sources presented by Donald. SBKSPP (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now convinced enough with more sources presented below. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles do review the song independently from the album (as linked above), and even mocked on The Daily Show. [16] Geeky Randy (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Show? That's like saying something is notable because there's a cutaway gag of it on Family Guy. Remember when Family Guy did a random reference for the sake of making a reference? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing is not like the second thing. Jacona (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song (not the album) is notable because it "was in fact promptly condemned by the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Education Association for its alleged negative effect on children's education," as documented by the reference. I added a new ref to an article in a scholarly journal of education that cites and briefly discusses the song.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The album this song came from debuted in the top ten of the US album sales chart, and already has 2 RS reviews in it. So the album the song is from is certainly notable according to WP:NALBUMS. (Just pointing this out before someone tries to shift focus to deleting that. The album isn't the problem here.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 20 June 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)} 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established here. I think a close is in order. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 25 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamini Abeysekera

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, apart from his obituary all the other references are merely mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Dan arndt (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 1 July 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 02:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Subject has plenty of publications, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage about the subject himself. Could not corroborate "advisor to the Prime Minister of Thailand" with any mention in Thai sources, using multiple spellings in Thai. That said, the bulk of his work was pre-internet, so this is not conclusive. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another "advisor." Just another poorly sourced text. Just another promotional brochure. Just another article created by someone banned from Wikipedia for engaging in spam. Ho hum. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 14 July 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 nominator's argument (lack of significant coverage) was not convincingly challenged by the those !voting to keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago After Dark

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage (not a series of mentions in passing) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs work that much is clear but I do believe this film is notable. It might not pass the requirements of WP:NFILM but the company that made this film was one of the few that made movies with all black casts. I'm not comfortable with removing this article at this time as it is a small but important facet of 1940's American film history. There is a lot that needs to be done to salvage this article and I would vote to remove delete it if it wasn't for its historical importance for the time. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I completely agree with Dr vulpes above. The page needs work, but the subject absolutely played a critical role in cinematic history. It needs love, not to be deleted and forgotten about. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any possibiity of locating sources to establish notability? Trying a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the previous comments are understandable, could any refs be found that show notability? Upon a search, I couldn't find much refs to show GNG. If any are provided, I will change my vote. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be enough substantial coverage about the film on its own; it is usually mentioned in passing as one of many examples of the 500 race movies from this era (this one is from 1946). It was shown for the first time in 40 years at the 2000 Harlem Week Black Film Festival; it seems better known for its posters rather than the content of the film itself. (In 2000, the plot was described as, "A lady escapes from the 'nut' house in this comedy classic.") An October 1985 article in Film Comment by film historian Donald Bogle about race films characterizes this one and Lucky Gamblers as "a blatant tribute to male chauvinism" based solely on how they were marketed. Whether that is a fair assessment of the film itself or not, it appears there are many other films of this genre that are more notable than this one. (I was originally going to suggest "Merge" with Race films, but as there's no obvious place to include it on that page if this one is deleted, and the other page requires work anyway, I'm OK with deleting this one and fixing the other one in parallel, and trying to work in a mention that way.) For those who are interested in this topic, please see Oscar Micheaux or Donald Bogle. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another data point (as background): See this one-star review of "Chicago After Dark" in a vintage film forum which calls it "Godawful, and having nothing to do with Chicago..." Cielquiparle (talk) 17:49, 7 July 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.