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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tolkien}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Gordon in popular culture}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Gordon in popular culture}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Mic Stand}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Mic Stand}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 17:19, 1 May 2022

< April 30 May 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tolkien

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

not sure this guy is notable, he planned to take part in a notable event, but didn't and previously tried to compete in said notable event, but was unable to actually compete. I don't see how he would meet NATHLETE or whatever recreational/sports sailing falls under and the news of his rescue wasn't all that...newsy, at best was a BLP1E, if that. CUPIDICAE💕 15:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable partcipant in a notable event, he is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assume this is based on the miss assumptions that lead to this request about him not competing in the event. User:Yachty4000 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All 114 sailors that have started the Vendee Globe have a wikipedia page why question one. It was challenged a few days ago after it was edited to have all it reference removed by another user. It has had it content edited heavily again for unknown reasons and now get challenged again. User:Yachty4000 21:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All 114 sailors that have started the Vendee Globe have a wikipedia page why question one. This is patently untrue. He did not start, and in fact, we do not have an article on everyone who has. [1], [2][3]. And the primary difference aside from WP:OSE for the others is that most if not all have multiple competitions where they actually placed or finished and significant coverage. Though, many of these are in fact, written by you and poorly sourced. CUPIDICAE💕 16:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look I only post really about one sport where I am an active historian together with general Olympic Work. But you can easily track on wikipedia that both the statements you made are not correct.
1) Here are all 114 starts and 84 unique finishers Category:Vendée_Globe_sailors (these groups validate the table on the primary vendee globe page)
2) He started and retired on day 29 of the 2000-2001 Vendee Globe a minimal amount of googling would have found that out. He didn't start a later edition because he sank the boat on a qualifing passage.
This page was well sourced and referenced as there are lots of articles about him. It not my fault another editor removed all the referencing. A number of the earlier sailors are started by me this is the wikipedia way it very hard to get huge amounts of reliable sourcing about sailor from the 1980s as these are printed media. Fundamentally wiki "french" also has all these pages. Once I have created these pages they usually get expanded by those closer to the person. User:Yachty4000 18:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am rescuing the one missing sailors who page has fallen foul of this procedure. User:Yachty4000 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This BBC article and this Sail World are significant coverage, and though WP:1E applies it appears they have received coverage outside of that incident, such as this article. Note that I do not know whether these sailing websites are reliable sources, and if they are not then my position would be to delete the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last source is basically a press release from the competition organization, the first is still BLP1E. CUPIDICAE💕 14:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage, for example just from The Times: Tolkien entering a new chapter Author: Steve Acteson Date: Thursday, Apr. 7, 1988 Issue: 63049; Tolkien, lord of the waves Date: Thursday, Mar. 17, 1988 Issue: 63031; Tolkien's turnround Author: Carol leonard Date: Monday, June 27, 1988 Issue: 63118; Tolkien on the crest of a wave Author: Carol leonard Date: Thursday, July 6, 1989 Issue: 63439; Tolkien to lead the challenge Author: Barry Pickthall Date: Wednesday, May 16, 1990 Issue: 63707; Leaks end Tolkien's solo quest Author: Keith Wheatley Date: Tuesday, July 24, 1990 Issue: 63766 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fundamental difference between a person profile page (contains background, DOB, other achievements etc.) and a general events page. If there wasn't there would not be ten of thousands of athlete pages on wikipedia User:Yachty4000 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. At the very least passes the WP:GNG, per sources detected by various contributors above. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After almost a month on AFD what is clear is that there is no consensus to delete. Whilst there is also no consensus on whether to merge, redirect, cleanup, or any other set of actions, that is an editorial matter which can be hashed out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gordon in popular culture

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

Yet another "X in popular culture" article that has ballooned to an ungodly amount of "every single time anyone said the words 'Jeff Gordon' in a work". Far too many of these are unsourced WP:OR or too inconsequential to even mention. While the sourcing is a bit better than most articles of this sort, it's still prone to synthesis -- the Tim Wilson song doesn't mention Jeff Gordon proper, just uses him in a jokey mashup manner. I suspect a great deal of WP:REFBOMBing is also in play, as this is far from the only example where the cited references do not verify this.

The list of works in which Gordon has appeared in cameos can be added as a filmography list in his main article, but everything else is in sheer violation of User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Popular culture, Sports, and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - AfD is not a substitute for improving the article and no actual Wikipedia policy is cited in the rationale. Any OR can be removed per BLP policy and merging to Jeff Gordon would make the target article too bulky. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you remove the OR, then the article would be completely blank. I just proved that this entire article is indiscriminate and confuses tangential name-drops (or even material completely unrelated to Jeff Gordon at all, such as the Tim Wilson song) with notability. None of the sources corroborate that the material has any relevance to Jeff Gordon or public perception of him, a fact I also proved by picking a couple examples. And last I checked, WP:OR --which I cited --is a policy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If what's left after removing anything that's actually OR is sufficiently short, then it can be merged into the corresponding section in the parent article. Your own personal essay is not proof of anything. I agree that the article needs a serious cleaning, but I contend that it is indiscriminate or that literally everything is OR. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading at MOS:POPCULT:
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ghost of Dan Gurney: AfD is not cleanup, and this particular article being a mess of cruft is not reason enough to delete it. If the article gets cleaned up by an interested party and what's less has very little substance or value then it can be merged to Jeff Gordon or simply deleted, depending on what's appropriate in that scenario. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AFD may no be for cleanup, but this mess warrants WP:TNT. This is beyond cleanup, if thi topic is notable, it needs to be tackld from scratch, first by showing there are reliable, in-depth sources that prove this topic meets GNG. Then probably 90%+ of what's here would need to go, if not more. The lead starts by making an unreferenced claim that he is an icon; this term is used in some sources, but they are pres releases. If there are reliable sources discussing his portrayal in pop cultue, are next to impossible to find this poorly referenced mess of chaotic mentions. Many refs are PRIMARY or fail WP:SIGCOV. Blow this up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:TNTTNT and see how you've actually admitted that this is a topic worthy of an article. Are you willing to start it over yourself? If so, why do you want to hide the edit history and remove people's credit? Why is merging to the parent article not a viable option? This is a very lazy rationale, in my opinion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostOfDanGurney I am fine, and in fact prefer, merging whatever's rescuable and redirecting this to preserve history. I didn' notice your merge proposal, which I now support as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jeff Gordon#In popular culture as a WP:ATD while keeping the most major pertinent info. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus, or merge as compromise. A lot of this is redundant with the main Jeff Gordon article. If there is a notable separate topic, there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this due to a lack of independent reliable sources. If editors are really against deleting this, perhaps a short summary can be included in the main article. But I struggle to see it, because even the most famous actors don't typically have a list of every talk show they have ever appeared on. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:28, 5 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) 17:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could be a subsection in his article with notable appearances in films/tv etc. We don't need a list of everything he's ever been mentioned in. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the actual notable appearances he's made in film/television (i.e. the ones that are more than cameos, use of archive footage, or "guest" appearances on talk shows) to the main Jeff Gordon article as a Filmography section. Nothing from the "Cultural References" section on should be merged, though, at those sections are basically lists of very non-notable trivia that boils down to "times his name was mentioned". Rorshacma (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I !voted delete above, and I still think that's a valid solution. But Rorschacma proposes a solution that I see other editors getting behind, and Merge to filmography seems like a good way to hit the main points, and remove the more poorly sourced material with WP:UNDUE weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin: it's been another 8 days, and I see that multiple delete and keep !votes have said they would consent to a merge. That's the kind of compromise and WP:CONSENSUS building we should encourage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Mic Stand

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

Fails WP:GNG. Impossibly poorly referenced advert for Amazon Prime TV show. Likely Fancruft. WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I do definitely disagree with the ADVERT/FANCRUFT article suggested by the nom; compared to truly cruft-polluted articles for Zee, Sony and Colors soaps and dramas, this is hardly at the levels of those articles at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Duggal, Deepansh. "Shashi Tharoor | 'One Mic Stand': Shashi Tharoor calls out PM Modi, speaks millennial lingo; his stand-up act becomes a massive hit". The Economic Times.
  2. ^ Das, Shreemayee (21 October 2021). "One Mic Stand writers room on making stand-up sets for celebrities, and training them to be 'losers' on stage-Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost.
  3. ^ Jha, Lata (14 October 2021). "Karan Johar, Chetan Bhagat in new comedy special on Amazon Prime". mint.
  4. ^ Parasuraman, Prathyush (22 October 2021). "One Mic Stand Season 2 On Amazon Prime Video Review: Comedy That Can Be Easily Ranked From Most To Least Charming". Film Companion.
  5. ^ "One Mic Stand: Shashi Tharoor, Taapsee Pannu take the stage for comedy special". The News Minute. 14 November 2019.
  • Keep – Meet's WP:GNG. Here's another source from The Hindu that provides significant coverage. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. It is not pitching to readers to view the show, it is not interlaced with promotional buzzwords, and it is not extolling the show. North America1000 07:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - such coverage as there is is not independent of the subject, being essentially publicity packed as interview or article. Not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The hindu ref above is PR and and lot of the above is PR, e.g. Mint. What is fintech company hosting an advert. Seems to mostly primary. I'm not seeing any real secondary coverage that is not being paid for. scope_creepTalk 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The Hindu article I posted above is a bylined news article written by two staff writers. This is not a press release or public relations piece, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the title of the article, in which links are only present for the article itself and a couple of copies/mirrors of the original article. Conversely, press releases typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. The difference is typically glaring when utilizing such searches. I also doubt that the article was "paid for", particularly without any proof of this being provided; all that has been provided to qualify this claim is proof by assertion. North America1000 17:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not that Mint, it's Mint (newspaper) from Hindustan Times' publisher. That article has a by-line and some independent content like mentions of past controversies. I agree that it wouldn't be sufficient on it's own, but in combination with other sources, I thought it had value towards establishing GNG. On the advert point, I disagree, per Northamerica1000's reasoning. Hemantha (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more obvious consensus on whether the subject passes WP:N
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources now in article and mentioned above here, including [4] (10 lengthy paragraphs), [5], a very lengthy article that made financial/political news, and [6] a very lengthy article. These are very significant coverage. This show has been successful in both India with it's billion-plus population and the United States. The article needs improvement, but not only do sources WP:NEXIST to show notability via WP:GNG, there are plenty that are now in the article. Jacona (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: disagree that this coverage is:
    independent
    - sources 1 and 3 read as press release dressed up as interview -eg: "When Sapan Verma first came up with the idea of One Mic Stand four years ago, it wasn’t a feasible project for multiple reasons ..."; “We were all YouTubers back then"While getting these celebrities would have been easy, we wondered how he managed to get Shashi Tharoor to take up the challenge. “That, I think was our biggest luck. So not many know but a few years back ..."
    significant -
    - source 2 is only peripherally about the show; it's substantial coverage about an MP.
    Springnuts (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eponymous archon. Consensus is that being an archon of Athens in Roman Greece isn't enough for notability, and that the information about this officeholder should be selectively merged to the table in the target article. Sandstein 07:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus

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

Obscure Roman who fails WP:BASIC and WP:INVALIDBIO due to absence of any meaningful biographical information aside from family relationships. Pointlessly deprodded under the mistaken belief that a local and probably symbolic officeholder such as this is automatically notable per WP:NPOL (the guideline says the exact opposite). If this office is so important, its holder is already listed at eponymous archon, making this article pointless. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Some of the content into the table at Eponymous archon. No indication of notability, as by this point the archonship of Athens was not a significant office and there is no indication that he passes WP:GNG. As an aside, do you have to be so damn condescending all the time, or can you actually dial it back and work collaboratively?? Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do i even know you Avilich (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone doesn't need to be known by you to notice that you have have a condescending attitude.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant content into Eponymous archon and Redirect to the same. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that Hipparchus appears to have a column and a half of scholarship about him in Pauly-Wissowa. The just-deleted article about Lucius Vibullius Rufus corresponds with a shorter entry, and in all the immediate family takes up about four pages and eight columns, as well as a graphic showing the family relationships between the various relatives of Herodes Atticus that stretches across the top of two of them. Admittedly most of what I can understand without speaking German discusses the various relationships of this family of Roman aristocrats. But even proceeding from the principle that "notability is not inherited", the amount of space devoted to Hipparchus and his immediate family in the gold standard of classical encyclopedias ought to give one pause about concluding that none of these people are notable. The number of sources that mention them also suggests that they're considered notable by modern scholars, even if most of what is known about them is how they were connected. However, I once again suggest that WP:BEFORE was not followed either before the PROD or before the subsequent nomination for deletion. However, as my caution has already been dismissed as "pointless" in this and several other related nominations by the same editor—as has my insistence that "deletion" and "merger" are not the same thing—I will leave it there. P Aculeius (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time and time again these shorter entries are shown to contain little more than propopographical trivia and a listing of primary sources (mostly inscriptions), with basically no biogrpahical details. Avilich (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above.★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger The proposed merge target is one of the worst possible choices: it's a list of people which isn't designed to hold the sort of content the current article has. This article is nothing more than a listing of relatives, which would only be worth something if the topic itself was notable, which it isn't. Wikipedia isn't a genealogical database and such information is no more appropriate in the proposed merge target than as its own separate article. I trust the closer will give less weight to these spurious votes which do not explain why merging to that proposed target is a valid ATD. Avilich (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not supposed to make bolded "votes" when you're the nominator Avilich. Pretty sure I've seen people in AFD say its not even allowed.★Trekker (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies to bolded delete votes Avilich (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I do not see a consensus forming here. Language, contentious sports guidelines and no input after a relist. Star Mississippi 02:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Abdulhameed

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 30 international appearances for Bahrain - if you search for his Arabic name which according to NFT is 'صالح عبد الحميد صالح محمد محميدي' then there are hits out there. No evidence that the nominator has looked at the various websites and news pieces to determine whether the coverage is significant or not - and of course there is likely to be offline sources given the level he has played at and country he is from. GiantSnowman 18:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Abdulhameed has spent eight years at Al-Muharraq SC, one of the most successful clubs in the fully professional Bahraini Premier League. The article is in dire need of additional sources. But I think it's fair to assume the player is notable. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 30 caps for the national team, I can't see why there wouldn't be coverage. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no WP:SIGCOV in article, and none provided here; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Given the consensus to remove WP:NFOOTY we cannot assume notability based on number of appearances. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've expanded the article using Arabic sources. @Ficaia, GiantSnowman, Robby.is.on, Govvy, and BilledMammal: pinging the involved editors. Nehme1499 11:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply @Nehme1499: It looks better, not my language, so verifying sources is tough. But I may lean towards weak keep, still feel it needs a bit more on his international scene. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arabic sources are routine match coverage. That does not satisfy WP:GNG. agtx 17:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly there are sources, as demonstrated by Nehme1499. It is also a very fair assumption that a player with 30 international apperances and who has played many years for one of the most succesful clubs in his country is notable, and we should therefore work to improve it and not to delete it. --SuperJew (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfDs such as these, and others which have been popping up like snails after the rain, i.e. articles about players who are clearly notable (many international appearances and/or playing for many years and having many appearances for top teams) but the articles are short and lacking sources, are exactly the reason why the SNGs like NFOOTY existed so as not to waste everyone's time on pointless AFDs. Perhaps there should be a better venue to improve articles, but doing it through AFDs is not the right venue. --SuperJew (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - While I appreciate the effort to flesh out the article, none of the added sources appear to be significant coverage (just routine/trivial match reports, injury reports and transfer/contract announcements), and one article with a single paragraph interview response (not independent coverage). It is interesting that he was the first Bahraini national to play in the Saudi first division (but I can't find anything covering his exploits there in detail). There are many, many match reports at www.akhbar-alkhaleej.com that mention him (sometimes even noting he is an "international") but again it's just the most trivial coverage. I suspect this person was profiled in some way that might be significant coverage, but I'm not able to locate it. Perhaps another editor with better Arabic-language translation tools can find it. Jogurney (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The cited reference [7] describes his past activities in detail which, IMO, goes beyond routine coverage, meeting criterion 5 in WP:SPORTCRIT. Combined with the other sources and I think WP:SIGCOV is met. EternalNomad (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that article counts towards WP:GNG, but even if it does GNG requires multiple sources, and that is the only one presented. I still support delete. BilledMammal (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, per improvement, clearly there is enough out there, Govvy (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more consensus on whether the subject passes WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 United Kingdom general election in London

2019 United Kingdom general election in London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an unuseful content fork of 2019 United Kingdom general election in England – London has no special status in general elections (it is not a single constituency). There was a similar article for the 2015 election, which was also deleted at AfD. Number 57 16:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can sort of see the rationale for having this article as London has tended to behave differently at recent elections to the rest of England (though the same would be true for other cities like Brighton and Bristol). However there are no major London only parties, and there was not a specifically different campaign in London, so I think this can be covered best with in the England article. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see absolutely no reason to delete this as regional election results in a national election provide additional helpful information to readers wanting more detailed information on the overall topic.Rillington (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rillington: An article cannot be kept solely on the basis because you like the idea of having it. The topic specifically would need to be discussed in independent sources, particularly in relation to London but it is not an entity in its own right. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting that this article actually provides less information than the article it is a fork from! Number 57 14:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this topic is not covered independently by reliable sources. London is very much part of England and there is no reason to specifically cover this in a separate article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 00:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dyne-Air Charter

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

This is a company stub on a charter airline which flies a single, 8-passenger aircraft. It has no references. A WP:BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR fails to unearth any WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG . Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Per withdrawn nom/CSD template on page Tawker (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Beh

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

Subject of this article is a man who owns a small women's clothing store in Monrovia. The article is sourced to a single reference and a WP:BEFORE search on newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News, and JSTOR produces only one additional reference, which is a brief quote from the subject on an unrelated matter [8]. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was trying to tackle systematic bias by adding Liberian people. I'm happy to speedy db author it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Willard Elliott

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

Fails GNG and a BEFORE check. Only sources that could be found were genealogy websites (Geni, WikiTree, etc.), mirror websites of Wikipedia and a blogspot post. It appears the creator of this article may perhaps be a descendant of said individual. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Missouri, North Carolina, and Oregon. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own geneological research into primary sources on your own ancestor. That may actually be giving the article more credit for using sources, but even if you fully use primary sources Wikipedia is not the place to publish that. Wikipedia is not another genealogical site where you publish your results.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing that makes the subject notable, and I couldn't find any RS discussing the subject. Seems like this would be better for a family genealogical website. --Kbabej (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of sigcov in RS.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America1000 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Gardiner High School

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (schools), lack of significant coverage. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish secessionism in Israel

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

Interesting, but all synthesis. Orphaned for ten years. PepperBeast (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this well referenced article. Nominator's claim of synthesis is incorrect. There are many discussions of Jewish states side by side within Israel. Quick example: [9]. Akhzivland is still missing from the discussion! gidonb (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you don't understand the concept of WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not claiming that the article lacks referencing. The referencing is (possibly) adequate to verify the individual secessionist incidents listed. I'm questioning the overall claim that Jewish Secessionism in Israel is a notable concept and not just the author's own synthesis. PepperBeast (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I understood you loud and clear. I will add more sources later. gidonb (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds brilliant :-) PepperBeast (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sympathetic to the SYNTH argument here; I see no sources which speak of *secessionism* in Israel as against reporting of a tiny number of fringe evocations. However, I'm willing to wait and see given the statement of sources to be added... Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete have looked at this further, no sources added in more than a week, my own searching turns up nothing of relevance. Nothing above or in the article can be said to discuss secesssionism by Jews in Israel. A list of unrelated fringe examples do not constitute secessionism. The article is SYNTH. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:SYNTHESIS –Ploni (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mirfield. ✗plicit 12:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crowlees Junior and Infant School

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

Primary school that fails WP:NSCHOOL. Not notable because an actor went there. Kept at 2007 AfD with arguments such as "Being rated 'Outstanding' by Ofsted is a very rare eventuality and shows clear notability". AusLondonder (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 9 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 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 AFC Cup

2024–25 AFC Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. The season qualifying is generally begin from spring 2023. Can consider a redirect to AFC Cup or draftify or delete directly Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to New Madrid, Missouri. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of New Madrid, Missouri

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

List of non notable mayors of tiny town. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Missouri. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Durindaljb (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mayors of minor places are not default notable. If a few were impractful enough to be mentioned in the history section of the New Madrid article they can be mentioned there, but there is no reason to have such a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge @Johnpacklambert Could you expand on how one determines the possibility for there to be a default for notability due to the size of a location? By applying this default due to the size of area governed biases the coverage of the encyclopedia to specific geographic regions with high population density without regard to the impacts to the cultural experiences of those in lower populated areas with equal lengths of history. The notability and impact may be more regional which does not have the same resources and attention devoted to the coverage of the activities. Given Wikipedia's abilities to cover long tail of culture and information a default argument that "minor places" is problematic and widens specific bias of Wikipedia. I propose that position lists should be merged at the very least with and checked that the data is included in Wikidata as the position holder series (replaces and replaced) by provide significant value to Wikidata and back to Wikimedia projects as it enables rebuilding the lists as a person may be identified to show the relationship of the position held from previous to current. Building lists of political positions is not necessarily easy and a process change from deletion without preserving the lists in Wikidata does defeat the work which it takes to create such lists. Merge to the place the positions are applicable and merge the data for position holders to Wikidata. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not one notable politician on this list. KidAd • SPEAK 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The mayors may indeed be non-notable, but the designation of New Madrid as a "tiny town" suggests that New Madrid itself is considered to be non-notable. However, tiny or not, it is world-famous on account of the earthquake. Everyone interested in seismic events has heard of New Madrid. Athel cb (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to a govenment subsection of New Madrid, Missouri. Short lists like these fit into the existing article, which right now has nothing about the local government structure. Sandstein 12:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously this content could be put into the article on the city, so this is mostly a formatting preference. If the preference is against keeping (and it seems to be in other AfDs over at least the past year), it should thus be merged.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sandstein. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Urania

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

Obscure, non-notable subject of a dedicatory inscription set up by a freed slave in ancient Rome who is itself up for deletion here. Although she was possibly a 'queen', the actual meaning of this designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous in the sources, and there's no conclusive proof that she was related to the people the article claims she was (according to the website the article itself cites; this source I found tells a similar story). The article relies wholly on self-published sources and the subject probably fails WP:GNG; nothing seems conclusive enough for a standalone article in any case. Pinging asilvering who first pointed out that this person may not be notable, and Ficaia who wished to redirect this to the person he thought was her daughter (whether that is so in fact is not certain). Avilich (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same source I linked. "We may suggest" and a question mark in the family tree don't inspire too much confidence. Avilich (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect doesn't necessarily imply that the two are physically related. But they are mentioned together in the only good source we can find. And "Julia Urania" is an unusual name, so I see no reason not to redirect. Anyone searching for "Julia Urania" should be directed to Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger, which includes the Classical Quarterly article as Further reading. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You neglected to mention the two possible husbands, according to your own source, who have articles as well. I don't care which one is the best target, only that the problems described here be solved with article improvement or removal, though feel free to propose any alternative or stand by your original choice. Avilich (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger is clearly the better target. Why choose between two possible husbands when we have one possible daughter? Also, the Classical Quarterly article is named for and focussed on Drusilla. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this source which says "one need not linger" over her since "so little is known about the personalities" of that context and that she may not even have been a formal queen but a freed slave. The author also doesn't venture to postulate any relationships, so who knows if the "daughter's" article need even mention such an inconsequential and uncertain detail. At the end of the day, all we have is a name who somebody wrote down 2000 years ago and we don't know for sure what to connect it to or what it represents. Avilich (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is the way to go I think, unless someone finds some reasonably significant coverage that has something to say about her that isn't speculation. As far as possible redirect targets as an alternative to deletion, the daughter seems like the best destination. But I'm not sure we really need an alternative to deletion here: we're not really sure much at all about this person, including what her name even was - basically, I don't know what reader would be looking for her in the first place under this name, so I'm not sure we're doing anything useful to anyone by having an article or a redirect for "Julia Urania". We should check that all the articles that link to Julia Urania have a one-sentence (or even less) note on her with that jstor article as a reference so that none of the articles are losing context in a way that implies Julia Urania was definitely a known, historical person with that name, but otherwise... -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to better determine a redirect target if that's the ultimate consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect -- A person whose very existence is only known from a single inscription is unlikely to be notable. This is a better option than plain deletion, as someone may search for her.
  • Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject lacks sufficient sources for notability, no merge or redirect required. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are just not enough sources to show notability. We should not merge or redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania: I believe just based on historic relevance alone we shouldn't outright delete. I'd be more in favor of redirecting to this article, since that is the only known confirmed link between the subject and her notability. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 02:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there's no reason to prefer the husband to the daughter, and there are apparently two husbands, as said above. Subject is too obscure for someone to search it before the proposed redirect targets anyway. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This probably makes no difference, but according to this there are two known inscriptions. SpinningSpark 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The second inscription was found in Arles, far from Mauretania, and names a husband and son who seem utterly unrelated to the speculation about this article's subject. The author remarks how téméraire (I hope your French is better than mine) it would be to draw conclusions based on nothing but an analogie of name. NebY (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly we are not keeping this but there is no clear consensus on where to redirect so can we settle that please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in response to relisting question: while reaffirming that I don't think redirect is necessary given that no one is likely to search for her, I additionally don't think that redirecting her to either proposed option is helpful. The one source we have on "Julia Urania" is not sure whether she is Ptolmey's wife or Drusilla's mother; both are conjecture. (See: [10], p. 319.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania or, as a second choice, Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger. Having to choose between redirecting a non-notable woman to her notable husband or notable daughter is difficult. For that reason, I actually would not be averse to keeping the page, even though a GNG case looks impossible. All her relationships can be given in context and the uncertainty of the information properly explained. SpinningSpark 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambiguation? There are two inscriptions, almost certainly referring to different women, and speculation about the possible notable relatives of one of them. Could we have a disambiguation page along the lines of
This would at least allow us to mention more than one of the proposed redirect tagets. NebY (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the inscription at Arles is not the wife of Ptolemy then not only would she appear not to be notable herself, but she has no relationship to anyone or anything notable, so a disambiguation page is inappropriate. You cannot use Arles as the target article on a disambiguation page unless you first shoehorn in a mention of her in the target article, and that would be WP:UNDUE. SpinningSpark 15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good points. Thanks for thinking it through for me. NebY (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. Stand alone notability is borderline, and rather weak, although I could see this go either way - assuming reliable sources are found. MY BEFORE gave hints that there is some discussion of her, but I couldn't find anything accessible, reliable and in-depth in the few minutes I spend. Do ping me if this is rewritten and I'll revise my vote. Oppose hard deletion as this is a searchable name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus The previous relisting comments are both hoping for clarity on the particular intended redirect target, if you want to throw in an opinion there. -- asilvering (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering My choice is Ptolemy_of_Mauretania, because, a, it has an (unreferenced) paragraph about her (whereas Drusilla article has a sentence at most), and b, in my BEFORE, I recall seeing the name Ptolemy but not Drusilla. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 03:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in Place

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

Fails WP:NORG, lack of reliable sources. Press release-like writing doesn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it though? I don't see it. Between the dead links and its own website, there's not a lot of coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the nine citations, two are the organisation's own website, and four are dead links. That leaves a book and two Chicago Tribune articles which incidentally mention it, which I wouldn't really say is significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School Chalo Abhiyan

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

The content in this de-prodded article, is about a program launched last month by Uttar Pradesh chief minister for which there is absolutely nothing apart from the coverage of his speech. All the references are PR in nature or are extensively written based on minister's comments. (The same CM had apparently "launched" this same program in 2017; which shows the pitfalls of relying on news sources here).

The title, 'School Chalo Abhiyan' is a routine slogan - literally meaning 'Go to School Campaign' in Hindi - used widely as a local term for "Enrollment drive". See for eg, Uttarakhand govt, an NGO, Madhya Pradesh chief minister, another NGO. As an WP:ATD-R suggestion, perhaps a brief line on the usage of the slogan could be added to Education in India and the title could be redirected there. Hemantha (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mittelmann

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

I tried to search for a reference to verify whether he has died or not, and I can find almost nothing on him apart from stuff copied from Wikipedia. Probably not notable? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. What an odd nomination. There are two major reference works already provided in the article in which Mittelmann has an entry: The Canadian Encyclopedia (see here; this source has the date of death and it was included in the article; @Ascendingrisingharmonising did you even bother to look at the sources already on the page?) and Theaterlexikon der Schweiz; both reference works notable enough to have articles on the sources themselves. Additionally, a google books search yields more sources and digging up reviews in major press doesn't appear difficult. For example, in just digging through the archives of The New York Times here are a selection of available reviews just from that one publication that could be used to expand the article: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed. Lastly, as a winner of the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions (a major singing competition); he clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO, criteria 4 of WP:CREATIVE, and criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Strongly suggest the nominator withdraw this poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep − obviously. No shortage of references to him in opera reviews in The Times. In one (16 March 1965) he gets a much better notice than Pavarotti in Traviata. His Dr Miracle was praised for its sinister quality (15 March 1966) and as Don Carlo at Covent Garden he was praised for "his powerful well-focused voice" and was "rightly cheered" by the audience.(7 May 1975). Clearly notable, and I agree with 4meter4 that the proposal to delete the article is, to put it as kindly as possible, ill considered. − Tim riley talk 19:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - massive before failure by User:Ascendingrisingharmonising - can they withdraw? In seconds I've found 2 encyclopaedia entrances and a detailed 1961 Winnipeg Free Press article. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references are good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well referenced as explained above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He has a long and impressive entry in the "Bible" of opera singers, and we should get more from it. I'm busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I expanded it slightly and added citations. Much more could be written about the roles he performed and important productions and recording he participated in, but at least it's no longer a stub.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of above. For the love of God, can trigger happy editors do WP:BEFORE and read the relevant guideline before wasting everyone's time? Atchom (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Though given God's trigger happy tendency of smiting first, and asking questions later, perhaps that's not the best deity to invoke, by Frig. ☻ Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-brainer keep.--Smerus (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks. This is an exceptionally poor discussion full of bad tempered bickering, accusations of canvassing and multiple policy free personal opinions dressed up in votes. Based on weight of argument we probably merge or redirect but with weak sourcing the merge target needs to selectively pull across material. Spartaz Humbug! 04:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Haired Shanks

AfDs for this article:
Red-Haired Shanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | [since nomination])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Just to stop the edit warring at this. Tbf, the article still fails WP:GNG. The majority of it is derived from primary and listicles sources, particularly CBR. As per WP: BEFORE, I can't find some reliable source that talks mainly about character, not only as passing mention or theories. According to Earwig's tool, this article also suffers copyright violation. BloatedBun (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I already explained myself several times about how this characters fails wp:notability though. There are little to no sources of the character to write a proper reception section. If the character were more outstanding in the narrative like say a Straw Hat it might be possible. I made a quick google search for possible reviews focusing on his appearances but dvd reviews only mention Shanks as a part of the premise. Same with the movie Red.Tintor2 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks and possibly even salt per nom and Tintor2. All the sources here are listicles that just provide two short paragraphs about the character or reviews of the main series that only briefly mention the character. Nothing comes close to significant coverage and a search for refs didn't yield any results. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article passes WP:GNG and uses the same critical sources as articles like Courier (Akudama Drive) or Swindler (Akudama Drive) such as Fandom Post. However those sources were not removed from those articles. Let’s also make be clear that User:Tintor2 was warned with edit warring with multiple users for repeatedly blanking the page and so now is trying to seek deletion even after they were advised to seek consensus on the Red-Haired Shanks talk page before pursuing such drastic measures. However Tintor2 is not the proposer as I originally thought, this was an error. --Plumber (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again with other stuff arguments. ComicBook was called by another user not to be reliable in contrast to the articles. Fandompost is reliable since it's Chris Beveridge's neverending reliable usage of reviews but there is little to nothing to write about Shanks. Today I've been checking One Piece character third party sources but only found only worthy information for the leads. Shanks is not that notable when compare with the Straw Hats not due to impact but because there is no such sources when I googled today.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) While the article does use the same sources as the two aforementioned articles, that doesn't mean they are significant coverage. Looking at the sources in the reception section, the reviews from The Fandom Post (which is a reliable source and I can explain why if requested) only mention the character briefly for their involvement in one specific scene in the series, definitely not significant coverage. The ComicBook articles (which is already scraping the bottom of the barrel as-is) are similar; despite mentioning the character in the title, they provide little commentary on the character and just talk about the plot of the series, which is also not significant coverage. Looking at the Swindler article, they have some sources like this, which are all about the character. I assume the Courier article is the same, but I don't feel like looking over it. While I agree that Tintor2 shouldn't have edit warred for as long as he did, he does have a good point regarding the character's notability. Link20XX (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am curious to know why you think Fandom Post is a reliable source, and not a dubious source that can be cited situationally or sparingly. Haleth (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Fandom Post's reliability was discussed by WP:ANIME. In short, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network (link) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even cited it as a source on occasion, like here and here. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion. Link20XX (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Plumber: If you have been paying attention at all, Tintor2 has not sought deletion at any juncture of their dispute with you, although they should have known better then to edit war. A merge or redirect is not the same as deletion. The editor who started this AfD is someone else entirely. Haleth (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was my mistake. I have corrected the above message and will apologize to @Tintor2: for the error. I’m sorry for my mistake, Tintor2. Plumber (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Plumber, you might also want to retract your allegation in the ANI you filed. Haleth (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plumber is now sending mass messages on people's talk pages and canvassing [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. BloatedBun (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am hoping for a proper turnout on this issue. Canvassing is fine if done according to NPOV. --Plumber (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mass canvassing specific users is not fine at all, see WP:CANVAS. Link20XX (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Plumber's response to the canvassing warning is cause for concern. Perhaps a report about them to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents would be appropriate. Haleth (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I only notified “Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article” and "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)“ in a neutral manner as "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." That is completely in line with WP:CANVAS. Plumber (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You even notified Nikkimaria, who is a FAC coordinator. BloatedBun (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I also notified you because I did not see your signature here at first and so I didn't know it was you who made this proposal lol Plumber (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks. There is a dearth of coverage about the character from reliable and independent secondary sources which are preferably from an out of universe perspective. I have already expressed my opinion about Plumber's mass creations of One Piece characters here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about the One Piece media franchise. A wiki specifically dedicated to all things One Piece, however, is this way. Haleth (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am giving my support to having the page remain per the suggestion of @Plumber: and the fact that the List of One Piece characters page is getting too long. A discussion about this was also started on that page's talk page. I'm just letting you people know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keeep. We have a few sentences of reliablish analysis added from [24]. He will have a major role in he upcomin One Piece: Red movie, and there's alraedy some coverage of this and his potential role: [25]. So here I think we have at least two sources (I discarded a bunch of weaker similar ones), that qualify for SIGCOV, if barely. And as usual - there probably is some more coverage in Japanese that nobody can find, or cares to do so, since for whatever reason I am not seeing Japanese-spekers active in anime and manga AfDs these days, sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks Not notable enough on its own. Weak coverage to stand on its own. ContentEditman (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as I agree with User:Rtkat3 about WP:SIZE. If this is to be merged then lets have a discussion about how to do it rather than place an AfD merge result at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the content duplicates that found at Fandom. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Taynix (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that this page needs to be remain. Since in the manga the Wano arc will end this year, he will probably be appeared more in the manga as author Oda promised on his message last year. Also, his film will aired this year on August. So most likely, many articles will published about him. If this page will be deleted this month, in a few months later, someone will make a page about him in Wikipedia again. So it is better that this page will be remain so other users can improve it until it meets the standard.--Bint Hafiz — Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I want this page need to be remain too. Like what @User:Bint hafiz had said, in few months someone will make page about him again. It is bothersome and we will begin in a scratched again. So it is better this page to be remain so some other users can improve it little by little.Selenne (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notice on the AFD closer that a lot of keeper votes above ignored notability criteria policy, except Piotrus. BloatedBun (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks per Link20XX. Rin (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of One Piece characters#Shanks as the current reception does not convince me that it is a character meriting their own article, mostly being trivial/fannish coverage. It seems most of the keep !votes are WP:ILIKEIT. Possibly WP:TOOSOON if he gets coverage after the One Piece movie comes out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of One Piece characters#Shanks per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen SebastianTalk 13:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, per WP:GNG. I recognize this is a borderline case, but the bulk of this comes from a couple questionable sources that are insufficient to meet our guidelines and policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Notability is WP:INHERITED from the series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Hernandez

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

Cannot find evidence of her meeting WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. She has not won or been nominated for any major awards for her works, Google searches come up with practically nothing besides links to her social media profiles, and none of the references in the article prove notability. Being a reporter/anchor alone for ABC World News and its affiliates does not merit notability as we do not have articles on every person who works there. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Independent sources are utterly lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 9 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! 05:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naqshbandi Golden Chain

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

Personal work article. It is filled with non-WP:RS citations such as "sufiwiki", 'Ghayb.com", etc. The few WP:RS in this article does not make a single mention of this so called "Naqshbandi Golden Chain." HistoryofIran (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely irrelevant article, ofcourse, when we have an article on Naqshbandi tariqah which has the ability to cover the "chain" as well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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! 05:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shah Bukhari

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

This article is a full promo and there is nothing that suggests notability. According to only one significant article about him in Greater Kashmir, he ran for Legislative Assembly elections several times, but did he even win? I fail to find any sources. This fails GNG, and there is nothing that helps WP:NPOL being met. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Islam, and India. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Norm and It has a lot of copyrighted stuffs which I removed. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor who created the article says that the newspaper copied the material from Wikipedia and, from what I can see they are correct. Wikipedia's content predates the news report by a couple of years. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well RP, then this article has been a blatant OR piece ever since it has existed on this encyclopedia. We do not have any other sources that verify this information, apart from the Greater Kashmir piece, which is interestingly a copy-paste newspaper piece of this very Wikipedia article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was only about the copyvio. The rest is ...! --RegentsPark (comment) 12:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore

AfDs for this article:
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company#The Walt Disney Company Europe, Middle East and Africa. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney Company EMEA

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

The Walt Disney Company EMEA

Unreferenced article. In its current condition, does not satisfy verifiability and is not ready for article space. It says nothing about the division of the company except that it exists. This page was created in article space and moved to draft space as not ready for article space, but was then recreated in article space with no improvement and no references. Since there already is a draft that the originator can work on, this unreferenced stub should go into the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Braven (organization)

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

This reads as a promotional article for a charity--but, it isn't coi; it's the product of a WP Ed course in promotional writing.: [26] In one sense the course was successful: it taught how to write advertising copy. In another it was altogether misconceived--teaching how to write promotionalism is the worst possible assignment for WP editing. It's teaching people how to destroy WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT. The sources mostly fail to be reliable and independent; when they manage that, the coverage they provide is not significant. Fixing this page would amount to starting from scratch, and by scratch I mean "deciding whether the topic warrants an article". Plenty of Wiki Ed contributions are basically fine, and plenty more just need a little fixing up, but the existence of this course was unethical, and its products need to be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per XOR'easter- who the fuck approved that course? Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 14:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. None of the comments are policy based, in that they don't address why she should be an exception to the guidelines. While consensus here is thin, the prior AfD was well attended and there's no evidence the situation has changed. Star Mississippi 23:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpam_Priya_Choudhary

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

non notable politican, not elected to any office as of yet. party lost all seats it contested in last elections and fails notability validation. the article was deleted previously but I thought to include it for discussion before nominating for deletion. Rohan9082 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Rohan9082[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rohan9082,

Pushpam Priya Choudhary is well known politician from Bihar belongs to a political background family and the founder of highly discussed party 'The Plurals Party'. The first time party not elected to any offices and failed to form the government but gain 7 lakhs+ votes in Bihar in very few days.

The article was deleted previously, it doesn't means that can't be created next time. Notability proves by all the article I mentioned in the articles references not by winning or losing the seats.

Thanks!

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Lekkala R Reddy, thanks for the comment. According to Wikipedia's policy on notability of politicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(politics)), the candidate must have been elected to a government office/ notable diplomatic office in order to qualify for inclusion. No one gains a Wikipedia article solely on the basis of 7 lakh votes (which is very low considering there have been crores of electors who voted) and that so many minor parties announced nominations for Chief Ministerial candidates. Certainly, the person might be suitable for inclusion in a future date, given she gains the criteria aforementioned (see to the link), but as of now, I believe, it is not so notable a topic. Also, talking about the references and citations, most appear to be Press Releases and the article itself has a very promotional tone, that might hint at something fishy. Thanks! Rohan9082 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. She is budding politicians and surely will do well in future. We should not promote deletion just because she has not got elected. Robinindian (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 05:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Iacullo

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

Very questionable this meets WP:GNG and looks really WP:PROMO. One link's a brief quote in an article about retail downturn in Toronto. The other three links actually all go back to the same single fluff piece interview. Woefully undersourced. JamesG5 (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaede Aono

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

A CV-type article about an actor, drafted by an IP and then moved into mainspace as an WP:AFC-acceptance the same day by a user blocked last week as a WP:SOCK. A previous article about this subject was deleted at AfD in 2018; I can't compare that previous instance, but most of the subject's work described in the present article would also have been available for consideration in that AfD. Given its creation and approval circumstances, it seems appropriate to bring this instance to AfD. The article text uses "starred in" for the subject's work activity, where she appears to have performed supporting roles. Neither these, nor several recent appearances as a cast member in a "Kei x Yaku: Dangerous Partners" series seem sufficient to demonstrate that WP:NACTOR notability has now been attained. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Japan. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article, like many other articles for Japanese actors and actresses, have enough coverages, and many editors and anonymous users can contribute more to the article later on. 47.232.204.213 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's not too much for me to add: my search didn't find anything that clearly satisfies the GNG/WP:BASIC (mostly just passing mentions, plus the occasional interview), and I agree with the nom that she doesn't meet NACTOR's requirement of multiple "significant roles". Unless there's something I'm missing due to the language barrier, Aono doesn't seem to be notable, at least not yet. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not seeing clear evidence of this person having had sufficiently major roles or anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. The last afd was not that long ago and I am unsure what, if anything, has changed since then. The existence of someone and having had some minor roles does not mean they are automatically notable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzmitry Chaka

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

Played 21 mins of professional football but no significant coverage. A Belarusian search yields only Wikipedia mirrors. A Russian search gives us nothing better, more mirrors and a few social media sites thrown in. I also did this search through DDG which yielded nothing on him other than stats databases. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Bowerman

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

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod removed due to them playing first class cricket for a significant cricket club, Somerset County Cricket Club, which may have resulted in significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Olympics, and United Kingdom. BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - spiritually speaking, I would say there's a difference between playing for W. G. Grace's Chicken Sandwich XI and a County Championship side. (Not in my opinion but that's by the by). The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. (Rationale copied from Montagu Toller). Bobo. 15:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. - I've checked, and WP:CRICKET has been consulted, but no significant coverage was found. That does not mean significant coverage does not exist, but it does need to be found to keep this article - playing cricket, or appearing in the Olympics, is not sufficient reason to keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A first-class cricketer who also appeared in the olympics satisfies GNG for me. @Harrias:, @Johnlp: – do you have any additional sources for his guy? StickyWicket (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as outlined on the Cricket Project talkpage, the first volume of the Somerset Cricketers series will have a section on Bowerman, as on all players from 1882. My copy is not currently with me, and it will take me a few weeks to be reunited with it. Johnlp (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comment at WP:CRICKET, I don't believe it would count towards GNG; sources that attempt to cover everyone within a group are routine coverage for that group and do not contribute to notability. Further, it is only one source, and we need multiple to meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Johnlp and Harrias. It should be worth noting that cricketers from that period in time won't always have widespread coverage, purely because of the age they lived in; however, that shouldn't discount what is written about them. One of my B-class military articles about a British general is largely sourced from a similar essay-based source. StickyWicket (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG is satistifed by sourcing, not actiions. We lack the sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, added a few quick bits from my Somerset books. Only looked in a couple. I don't expect to find tons more, but I think there is enough here to show that he meets the GNG. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think there's just enough here for a GNG pass, although it is marginal. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's enough here to satisfy me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom on the basis of sources provided by Harrias (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montagu Toller

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

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod removed due to them playing first class cricket for a significant cricket club, Somerset County Cricket Club, which may have resulted in significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Olympics, and United Kingdom. BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - spiritually speaking, I would say there's a difference between playing for W. G. Grace's Chicken Sandwich XI and a County Championship side. (Not in my opinion but that's by the by). The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. Bobo. 15:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. - I've checked, and WP:CRICKET has been consulted, but no significant coverage was found. That does not mean significant coverage does not exist, but it does need to be found to keep this article. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm adding a bit more stuff to the discussion at the cricket wiki project. Gut feeling is that a series of redirects is probably in order, but there are certainly some sources out there in print which could be used to add some details about some of these chaps. I'd argue for some patience and an alternative approach as more might come out and then we'd lose article histories. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have pinged the two cricket editors who did much of the work on Somerset cricket, just waiting for them to reply. StickyWicket (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As above on Bowerman, and as outlined on the Cricket Project talkpage, the first volume of the Somerset Cricketers series will have a section on Toller, as on all players from 1882. My copy is not currently with me, and it will take me a few weeks to be reunited with it. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on your comment at WP:CRICKET, I don't believe it would count towards GNG; sources that attempt to cover everyone within a group are routine coverage for that group and do not contribute to notability. Further, it is only one source, and we need multiple to meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ROUTINE does not apply to people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NSPORT, routine applies to sportspeople. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it doesn't say that this kind of coverage is routine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does notdatabase apply? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. An article sourced entirely to databases, as this one is, cannot put the data in context. BilledMammal (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for now at least. We're going to need to wait and see what sources Johnlp can get to. I've used this sort of guide regularly to source articles and they are almost always authoritative and generally written by experts in their field. On occasion, however, they end up saying "we know nothing about this bloke". That may be the case here, although I doubt it due to his Olympic involvement. If it is I'm sure we can revisit the article and decide to redirect it to the list of Somerset cricketers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the work added by Harrias, there's clearly now enough here for a reasonable pass of GNG - the sum of the parts of the references clearly add up to enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Johnlp is a highly competent editor, so I trust his source will provide a good level of depth for the subject. StickyWicket (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if you don't consider the coverage routine, it is not known whether the source contains WP:SIGCOV of the subject, and even if it does we need multiple examples of SIGCOV. At the moment, we cannot keep the article, per WP:SPORTCRIT #5 and WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can keep it for a period of time to see whether sources can be found - that's an utterly reasonable and pragmatic approach to the situation here. Fwiw I imagine the Somerset source does meet the SPORTCRIT point (and GNG obvs); it seems to in other cases. In any case, there are clear ATD here which can be used - there is absolutely no need to delete the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • In two weeks, we have found one source that might contain significant coverage. That isn't enough to keep the article, although a redirect would be suitable - if WP:GNG is met in the future, then the article can be restored with that coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, added some more information, and I think there is enough around to demonstrate notability. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Harrias: Thank you for adding those sources. I can only access four of them, but none of those include significant coverage - can you provide additional information on the coverage in "Sunshine, Sixes and Cider" and "Somerset Cricketers 1882 – 1914" and whether it is WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BilledMammal: Sunshine, Sixes and Cider is little more than a passing mention, while Somerset Cricketers 1882 – 1914 is a two page biography. I'm having a look through some newspaper sources today, will see what there is. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BilledMammal: Added a bit more from some contemporary newspapers. The coverage makes it pretty clear that he was a prominent rugby player in Devon at the time, and he receives a lot of local coverage. Most of it is relatively trivial; mentions of his performance in games for Devon or Barnstaple, but he also receives a good length profile in the Western Evening Herald (this one (subscription required)). There is also a reasonable amount of very local coverage for his role in local politics, but nothing there that really meets SIGCOV alone. All put together though, I think there is enough for GNG. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think there's just enough here for a GNG pass, although a weak one at that. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This has run a month, and there is absolutely no consensus to be found. However sources have been confirmed to exist, and they could be added. No policy based reason to move this to draft space, and the improvement could happen in mainspace Star Mississippi 03:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Samantha?

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

Zero reliable sources in the article, strong doubts in the notability of the subject. Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually avoid "coming soon" and "out now" articles as they are rarely WP:SIGCOV. If a game cannot even muster 3 reviews it is probably not notable enough. GameZebo is the only one listed as reliable on WP:VG/S which tends to be rather thorough in regards to any and all trustworthy sites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I'm not thrilled with the sources, but we have enough to meet WP:N and plenty with which to write an article. Hobit (talk) 06:33, 23 April 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, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Insufficient substantial coverage to pass Notability. I was going to say merge into ROKiT Games & Respect Studios iaw WP:PRODUCT, but there's no such article to merge it into. So delete it is. Springnuts (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if additional RS are not identified, as more would be needed to justify notability Also, why are you asking? Samantha's right here... :) → Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 1 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) 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looks like Coin945 dug up enough sources to demonstrate its notability. Not ideal but at least we could write a short article about it, if we choose. Haleth (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources listed in AFD are sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is on week 3 of listing with very even conensus. I am not sure what the outcome of this article will be, As of now, none of the suggested sources were even added to the article, but some of these suggested sources are reliable. Right now I cannot identify a good resolution for this article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:31, 11 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. and it does not appear further input is forthcoming. The decision to keep or redirect can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Privy Councillor with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies

Privy Councillor with responsibility for the Crown Dependencies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This office does not exist as set out by the PROD tag placed by Ebonelm in 2016. Appears to be a misunderstanding of the wording used by primary government sources to refer to the Secretary of State for Justice AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • ISBN 9780853237877 page 379, written by a professor of political studies at Liverpool John Moores University who specializes in the Isle of Man, agrees with the article and not with you. A quick further search reveals one Jack Straw also disagreeing with you:

    The relationship between us and the Crown Dependencies is a subtle one. They are dependencies of the Crown, they are not part of the United Kingdom, so the responsibilities I have for them are as a privy councillor.

    — Crown Dependencies: Eighth Report of Session 2009–10: Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Volume 1, page 6
    Page 20 of the same report says "For these purposes the Justice Secretary is the relevant Privy Councillor." Historian Charles Crawley agrees:

    The Privy Counsellor who is the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor is responsible for managing their relationship with the Crown,

    — ISBN 9781443881289 page 363
    It's a privy councillor according to the experts, not a minister of the U.K. government. Uncle G (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom are members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. The Cabinet is a committee of the Privy Council. The premise of this article is like creating a seperate article titled "Privy Councillor with responsibility for national security" for a role filled by the Home Secretary. What Crawley is saying is that whoever happens to be serving as Justice Secretary holds these responsibilities. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A better comparison would be with Lord President of the Council. Currently Mark Spencer (and until February Jacob Rees-Mogg) holds both that office, and the position of Leader of the House of Commons, and sits in Cabinet. However, Lord Present of the Council, which is a Privy Council responsibility is not part of the responsibilities of Leader of the House of Commons, and has been combined with different posts in the past (and sometimes no other post, e.g. Viscount Hailsham in the early 1960s), and has on occasion been held by someone not in the Cabinet (e.g. Andrea Leadsom). In contrast there are no "national security" responsibilities that come distinctly from the privy council, and hence the Home Secretary has no distinct responsibility as "Privy Counsellor with responsibility for national security" - all the responsibilities are part of the ministerial office. Mauls (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Redirect to Secretary of State for Justice. Reading the sources, I agree with AusLondoner, this is not a position or office, it's just a description of what a different office does. A merge to Crown_Dependencies#Relationship_with_the_UK could also be appropriate. Reywas92Talk 02:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Secretary of State for Justice. It's not an office, it's a description of one of the roles of the SoS for Justice. Atchom (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. Although all secretaries of state are privy counsellors, not all privy counsellors are members of the government. This is a distinct responsibility from that of Secretary of State for Justice in the HM's UK government, and is the member of the privy counsellor responsible for advising the privy council on matters relating to the Crown Dependencies - which are not part of the United Kindom. It is wholly dissimilar to the Home Secretary's direct responsibilities for national security in the United Kindom, which are part of that ministerial portfolio.
If the decision is not to keep, then this should be a merge not a delete and redirect, as this material is not covered in Secretary of State for Justice.
Mauls (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also point out that multiple secondary sources related to the constitutional affairs of the Crown dependencies are clear that it is a distinct office held by a privy counsellor, which is generally held concurrently by a member of the UK cabinet. See for example Kermode, D. G.. Ministerial Government in the Isle of Man: The First Twenty Years, 1986-2006. Isle of Man: Manx Heritage Foundation, 2008, p.173 "advised by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in his capacity as a privy counsellor" (emphasis added); Kermode, D. G.. Offshore Island Politics: The Constitutional and Political Development of the Isle of Man in the Twentieth Century. United Kingdom: Liverpool University Press, 2001. p.379 "The UK Home Secretary in his capacity as a privy counsellor ..."; The Times Reports of Debates in the Manx Legislature. United Kingdom: n.p., 1984. p. 594 "It must be remembered that responsibility for the Island's affairs does not actually fall on the Home Office, but on the Privy Counsellor responsible for advising the sovereign on the affairs of Crown dependencies".
In 2001 the Government of Jersey commenced legal action against Jack Straw, then the Privy Counsellor with Responsibility for the Crown Dependencies for not submitting a law to the privy council for ratification - Straw had not done so because the UK government did not approve of the law, but the Jersey Government contested that this was an improper interference of the UK office of Home Secretary with the office of Crown Dependencies Privy Counsellor (Straw backed down and submitted the taxation law for approval, so the issue was not resolved in court.) See "A harmful delay", (2001) Jersey Law Review 5 (120)
Also primary sources of the Crown dependendies governments draw the distinction between the offices, c.f. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ID%20Law%20Officers%27%20Complaints%20Procedure%2020160805%20ALS.pdf; https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/C%20Judicial%20Independence%20Appendix%201%2020170616%20DS.pdf.
It could also be pointed out that responsibility for Crown dependency affairs is conversely not listed in the responsibilities of the (office of) Secretary of State for Justice: https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-justice
I have not seen any sources cited yet in support of AusLondoner's contention, which appears to be based on the misunderstanding that the position is a post in the United Kingdom government, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional relationship between the Crown dependencies and the Crown. Mauls (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the sources mentioned by myself and Uncle G to the article. Mauls (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 9 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/Keep. this could legitimately be closed either way with !votes after the improvement not unanimous. With the outcome the same with either and given the era in which he played and the lack of consensus around sports guidelines, it is unlikely a relist would provide clarity to close this differently. Star Mississippi 01:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marino Nicolich

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

Completely unsourced article about a player with a few claimed professional football appearances in the 1930s. The only incoming links are from lists of people by name or nationality so it seems he isn't mentioned on any sports pages. The corresponding article in Italian has links to stats websites whose reliability I can't comment on, but also no GNG sources. This was a PROD, contested as "too controversial for PROD". —Kusma (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sounds like it might be a notable player on the amount of games, firstly, why didn't you goto the article creator (Geregen2) and ask where did he get his information from and ask for the article to be improved before nominating?? Govvy (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did inform the creator (who is active) of the PROD, which in my view is an invitation to improve the article to prevent deletion. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have expanded the article, I feel there are more sources out there to be found. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: Not too convinced by the sources you use there (why reliable?). Best source I could find is at least half a page in this book, published by Newton Compton Editori. There are a few references to original news reports in that book that should help with verifiability. It is a bit concerning that we don't know when he died, though. —Kusma (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: My Italian is pretty much three words, you'd be better to ask editors like Dr Salvus or Nehme1499 if they can improve the article, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather draft it rather than deleting this. Maybe we find something of interesting? Dr Salvus 15:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stats sites are not suitable sources for a biography.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @Govvy and especially @Struway2's expansion, the article does now have more content and better sourcing, including the book I found plus some newspaper reports from the 1920s/1930s. All a bit focused on his time at Roma, but this does mostly alleviate my lack-of-sourcing concerns (some of the other sources are questionable but this is not a GA review). Not fully convinced but I would not have nominated the article for deletion in its present state. @GiantSnowman, @S Marshall: what do you think of the new sources, notability-wise? —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
looks good to me! GiantSnowman 14:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit less impressed than Giant Snowman is, to be fair. Thanks to Struway2's expansion I can see ten sources in the article, and my view of each of them is:
Source 1 is this, from what looks to me like a specialist sports newspaper. The article is about the team he played for, and it includes a small photograph of the team. Nicolich is mentioned in one place on the page, in the image caption (he's second on the left). When the coverage is about the team, are we meant to accept that notability is inherited down to the individual players? I wouldn't say that's significant coverage.
Source 2 is this, a different article in a different issue of the same paper. Nicolich is mentioned in a block of text in column 6 -- he's actually mentioned in two places, although the first time they get his name wrong ("Micolich" instead of "Nicolich"). The first time is at the end of paragraph 4 of the piece where it says he played with exuberance and impetuosity. He's also mentioned in a block of text in paragraph 11 which lists every player in the team by name. I can't see how it amounts to significant coverage.
Source 3 is this, which is routine coverage in a sports stats site. This is a primary source that contains no critical analysis and displays no selectivity about what it publishes.
Source 4 is this, a primary source that contains no critical analysis and displays no selectivity about what it publishes.
Source 5 is this, an incredibly comprehensive book about everyone who's ever played in this team, and which I agree is one of the two sources needed to establish notability.
Source 6 is this, and it mentions Nicolich several times in columns 2 and 3, and describes his footballing skills in glowing terms. Nevertheless the article is about AS Roma, not about Nicolich as an individual, and it contains no biographical information about him, so it's a stretch to call it evidence of notability.
Source 7 is this and it should be removed from the article because it doesn't mention Nicolich and contains no information about him at all.
Source 8 is this, our old friend Il Littoriale again. It publishes another long, detailed article about AS Roma in which Nicolich is mentioned in passing twice, once in column 1, paragraph 10, and once in column 2, paragraph 4.
Source 9 is this, and I'd immediately ask, why do we think that's reliable? There's no publisher named, no evidence of fact-checking that I can see, and looks like user-generated content to me.
Source 10 is this, written in amateur-level html with no named publisher and no evidence of fact-checking.
So all in all, to my eye this isn't all that great. Source 5 is decent-ish but you need significant coverage in two independent reliable sources to establish notability.—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, source 7 verifies the statement that Volk was Serie A top scorer, so removing it from the article would leave that statement unsourced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per extensive discussion of sources above. I'd add that I don't think #5 counts. It is just the print equivalent of database coverage, which we deem not to be significant. agtx 17:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not because the article as expanded demonstrates enough significant coverage to pass GNG; it probably doesn't, yet. I've only expanded up to the end of his Roma career, simply because I just don't have the time or eyesight required to search online newspapers of very variable image quality in a language in which I'm not remotely fluent. What it does demonstrate IMO is the likely existence of enough SIGCOV, as per WP:SPORTCRIT bullet 5. I think source 6 is mischaracterised above: it doesn't "describ[e] his footballing skills in glowing terms". It devotes a solid paragraph to an analysis of how he plays: what he does well, what he does less well; his style, in comparison to that of another player with whom the readers would have been familiar. It was pleasing to find something like that so easily: a sportsperson's biography needs analysis of how they play their sport. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would the closer of this AfD please consider relisting it, to allow Struway2 more time to locate the sources that he believes must exist.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a constructive suggestion; thank you for making it. However, what I said above is literally true: I personally don't have the time or eyesight or language skills required. The CONI archive is a great resource, but the print/paper quality of many of its newspapers doesn't lend itself to OCR and searches don't pick up every instance of his name, especially after it was Italianised to Nic(c)oli. I could fill in the rest of Mr Nicolich's career from database sources, so the article doesn't stop dead as soon as he leaves Roma; that would make the article look a bit less silly, but won't change anyone's mind about the existence of SIGCOV or not. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case how about we draftify this article until the sources you mention are found? We shouldn't have undersourced biographies in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:GNG, and sources identified above. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Some of the sources provided by Struway appear to be significant coverage (or nearly so). Given the difficulty of locating pre-internet era Italian language sources, I think it's reasonable to think GNG could be met here with some more time and effort by knowledgeable editors. Jogurney (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article is in the process of expansion and there are claims that there are IRS to be added, let's give it a try. We do need more consensus on the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:08, 9 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 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damoov

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

This is a small startup. The sources provided are database entries, such as Crunchbase that show just how small this company is, and a press release send out on ANI/PNN. Searching for more sources has yielded little. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Mvqr (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al-Aliany

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. All of the 4 foreign language Wikipedia articles on him are based on his Transfermarkt profile, an unreliable self-published source. Searches of "علي العلياني" have yielded no useful coverage even when adding 'football' (كرة القدم). Soccerway shows 106 mins of professional football and there is clear consensus at recent AfDs that such a brief career in the game is never acceptable grounds for keeping an article on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Carstens

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

Not inherently notable therefore WP:GNG must be satisfied. I have analysed the sources currently presented in the article as well as those found in DDG, Google News and ProQuest and will present a source analysis below to explain why the sourcing does not satisfy GNG currently. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www.fortunahjorring.dk/index.php/dk/11-dansk/660-2-x-carstens-pa-u16-landsholdet No This is a club that she used to play for so not independent No No Contains no info on her other than the fact that she has played for Denmark U16 and Fortuna U18 ✘ No
https://www.fodboldforpiger.dk/2018/11/signe-carstens-vi-har-stadig-ikke-ramt-vores-hoejeste-niveau/ Yes Yes No There are two quotes from her but absolutely no independent analysis whatsoever. ✘ No
https://nordsoeposten.dk/tre-unge-fortsaetter-udviklingen-i-fortuna/ Yes Yes ~ Mentioned that she signed in Feb 2018, has a twin (Mathilde) and was injured for one year. No other info can be extracted. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Agree with Spiderone's assesment of the sources. Also did a search but was unable to find anything of significance. Alvaldi (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched in a few places but found nothing of value. Can you please share these sources showing detailed coverage? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Vella (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer that fails WP:NBOX Knightmare 3112 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. While sourcing has been identified, there remain concerns about whether it's of the depth and refers to the subject. I don't see a third relist changing that. As this is not a BLP, and in fact not a person, sourcing concerns are less a reason to lean delete when consensus is thin. Star Mississippi 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Philatelic Society

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

No indication of notability (as the concept is understood in en:Wikipedia) in this polite advertisement for a US organization for the study of German stamps.

Editors more energetic than I am may wish to look for examples of the same thing in Category:Philatelic organizations. (I've already noticed a number that look similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt @The Gnome:, that the Daily Herald reference is the weakest of the three I provided, and more of a mention - and I agree if that was the only one I provided, this would be a delete. But to say that The Capital article, that the subject is a stamp collector rather than the Society, seems exaggerated to me, given that the collector (Christopher Deterding) was the secretary-treasurer of the Germany Philatelic Society, and the 18-paragraph article, that's the centrepiece of the page, and continued on the following page, does discuss the Society itself; I'm not sure the concern about this article. While the one you cannot see, the 20-paragraph article in the Baltimore Sun is primarily about the organization and their 1965 convention. Can you see this clip? Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild Keep I get more than a few hits in Linn's Stamp News about them, [29], with the newspaper article above, I think we have enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this reference as well is about something else and not our subject. It's a 2016 letter about an esoteric issue ("shades" on a stamp) published in Linn's Stamp News, a "newsmagazine for stamp collectors", in which it is mentioned, in passing, that the letter writer used to be a member of the philatelic society. Nothing more. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also found news coverage just by casually Googling it. It’s clearly a significant organization that meets general notability guidelines. I’m not sure why there is a sudden flood of calls to delete these stamp-related articles either. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:36, 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 12:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Adams (police officer)

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

No indication of notability. It seems that Adams was linked to some high profile corruption cases in the UK, but these findings were never corroborated and he was never charged with anything. Natg 19 (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete. Poorly written article, no citations, long list of reference supplied but they aren't linked so unclear how they are relevant. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Raunaq Ahuja

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

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

  • Comment: He does seem to have acted in some films here -[30], I think it is him. RS6784 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB isn’t a reliable source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmad Sayer Daudzai

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

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

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

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

GameClub

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

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

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

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

Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking

Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Top 20 Countdown: Most Shocking episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

Dream Focus, the NYT article is a one-paragraph mention in a fairly routine "what to watch this weekend" article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Gyuri Sarossy

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

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

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

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

  • Delete He has certainly played roles in the top movies and series but they're only minor roles. Like EastEnders, he only appearances in two episodes, same with other movies and lacks WP:SIGCOV to crown it with. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's clearly no WP:SIGCOV largely owing to his limited career, which largely consists of minor roles.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Reviews on the Run

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

  • Delete Not enough SIGCOV here to warrant a page Dexxtrall (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Numenta

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

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

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

  • Though I appreciate the edits of StrayBolt to find independent sources, a single Harvard Business Review article and a single Wired article (which reads like a press release about their new products) doesn't, to me, seem to pass WP:ORGIND. The Google Play app no longer seems to exist and the reference used here seems to a press release, as well. I hope that we get some additional discussion about these sources. Ian Manka (my talk page) 05:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a couple more refs, some about Numenta Anomaly Benchmark. StrayBolt (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Loads of independent reliable sources can be found by clicking on the word "scholar" in the nomination statement. Some of them have been added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • None relevant though. Lots of discussion about the application of their algos and technology, I don't see any in-depth information on the company. Perhaps you can provide a link? HighKing++ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Computing. StrayBolt (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
  • The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" and discussions about the application of the technology is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
The only reference that qualifies is the Harvard Business Review that has written on a number of occasions about the company and although I haven't managed to read the article yet, I've read many similar articles from the HBR and I'm happy to assume it will be of the same quality. But we need multiple references and none of the other references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. As things currently stand, with only one reference that meets the criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. I unable to locate another reference that meets the criteria but I'm happy to change my mind if something turns up. HighKing++ 17:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I also attempted to find other articles that met the WP:NCORP (and other) standards but gave up after a while searching. Ian Manka (my talk page) 00:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Balen Shah

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

Balen Shah

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

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

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

He is one of the well known musician/rapper from Nepal, which might be the reason other users also tried to create an article of him before. About his discography, no matter who writes about it, it will still be same because he was involved in those projects, so I don't know what different I could have done for that part. One biggest challenge I have gone through with articles related to Nepali people or films is that most of the time sources are considered unreliable. All of those sources which you have considered "probably" in terms of reliability are some of the best sources which covers Nepal related news coverage. Also regarding your comments on "would-be politician", I don't think only office or position holders are considered politician, as much as I know, person running for the office or position is also considered politician. I also do not have any coordination with any of the editors who you mentioned also tried to create this article, although I do agree that most of the references in the article only covers his political campaign, so I will work on finding more sources which covers other agenda as well. I just thought it would be helpful for Wikipedia if I create an article of someone who is well-known personality to Nepali people, any amount of time I get to improve this article would be appreciated. Krishna Dahal (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Not really notable person, just a candidate. Can incubate in draft till he is notable. Less chances of his win.JayMithila (talk)
  • Delete drafted article would be good option rather then this. Fade258 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work for me as well, as long as one of the articles doesn't get deleted. Drafted one or one on the main page, one of them should stay in main space. Krishna Dahal (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

1984 Calcutta Football League

1984 Calcutta Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep - The league happened in the pre internet era and I am sure it's difficult to find the same online. When I created the article, I have mentioned that, the article is based on a page from The Sportstar. I hope sports loving editors will support this page. Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Calcutta Football League. No independent notability. GiantSnowman 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Asia's oldest football league and it has (should have) independent page for each season. Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Calcutta Football League. Doesn't appear to be enough for independent notability for a season article. Only one source provided.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 06:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am surprised to see this article. As an Indian football lover, this page is very much informative and you can't get it from anywhere. It is important to have all seasons updated with these type of info. Benny2409:4072:594:DB0D:6D6B:4414:94FC:C17F (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide multiple sources discussing this season in depth to show a passing of WP:GNG if you want this kept Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and redirect to Calcutta Football League Adding recommendation. Already gave current critique as nominator. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Updated two important references and this one [1] is very important. Requesting @Titodutta to check the same.Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

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

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

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

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)

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

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

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

Again, I don't have an opinion on it either way, so my part of the nomination shouldn't be taken as a delete. (Note: The multiple speedy deletions of this article under the local equivalents of G2,G3, G11 and G12 from it.wiki seems to have got some media attention.[31][32][33][34][35]) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He is notable. Even years ago, checking the sources, you could have noticed how his book tranlsated into English was a cited on journals, his professional career increased even further. When you manage even before reaching notability for more "pop" reasons to be cited in sources in at least three languages (Italian, English, German), there is not really a lot of doubt. The spike of attention now is an additional coating on the cake of notability, with more sources in English, Russian and Italian. All international or national news publishers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to disagree. there are many books on left-wing terrorism in Italy after WWII, and Orsini's has not made a particular impact. He is a mid-career academic, with reasonable credentials, but certainly not somebody who would attract any wide interest, especially from non-Italian readers. His only claim to fame is his stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and that does not justify an article on him. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    it's in the sources in the page... you can't disagree with sources, not very wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I can add more sources about the media attention of the deletion on itwiki. I usually don't in these cases because it make itwikipedia sometimes look bad, but if you want more proof of generic notability we can put it there, it just reinforces the relevance. He did not need that, he is known internationally for his work (the book about Red Brigades) and the issue with Rai3 and his contract. That's already enough by enwiki standard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Alexmar, just to clarify, the deletions on it.wiki were speedy deletions as it had met the local equivalents of speedy deletion criteria G2, G3, G11 or G12 (it seems to have been deleted at least 6 or 7 times, probably more), not because of a lack of notability, like when it was deleted from here in 2016. Can you possibly give some sources that help establish notability? I'm not questioning their existence, but it would help the discussion move toward a conclusion if you provided some. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, using deletions on another wiki as a proof is methodologically wrong if the core aspect treated there are not sources and the topic. So maybe you should point out first why citing deletions for formal reasons is important in a discussion based on content. Also, it's not correct to ask me for sources of notability like the ones in the articles are not enough, this is not something who should be done implicitly or under the umbrella of a neutrality that based on the fact you add the reasons for the deletions and not the IP, it's not strong here.
    First, write down precisely why you (not the IP) think that the current academic and general sources in so many languages over the years are not enough. Not as general concept but as your personal position. At this point, I can add you even more sources about the aspects in the artice and - why not- also about the deletion procedures. Of course, when you are cited everywhere on national newspapers when you are deleted, that means you are notable. Which means that the correct thing to do for a Wiki is to write the article. Even if the wiki has a high standard, with these academic sources it's almost impossible to deny notability. If you do so, you won't have 6-7 formal deletions in a row, every expert user knows that. Even the general public nowadays knows that, like those who write to me in private asking to why I am not writing this article, which at a certain point I do.
    So please write down, why do you think I should add also 4-5 national national sources about itwikipedia that proves Orsini is notable also because of this aspect. Or just add them yourself, you already add sentences to the article--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexmar983: Sorry, my comment seems to have been a bit open to interpretation, and you seem to have interpreted it differently to how I intended it.
    For goodness sake, I try to help an IP to do something that they were having trouble doing on their own, and now here we are.
    You've somewhat put me in a position where it is best to make my actual position on this debate clear.
    Keep: I suppose that might surprise you? Anyway, next time I see an IP mess up when trying to nominate a page for deletion in good faith, I'll just ignore it. This has been far more trouble than it's worth. I'll steer clear of that page too in future. I'm also not going to contribute any further to this discussion here, as this can only go downhill. Good day/evening/afternoon/night/morning. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it might not be clear because it's not in the article yet ("yet" because it's written so far on weak sources, or they are not accessible and it's just in some google previews, or it can be inferred directly from his statements) but just so you get a more in-depth context besides some citations usually extrapolated by media: Orsini comes from the left, not the right. He showed in the past for example a quite strong pro-immigration stance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That Orsini comes from the left does not seem relevant to this discussion. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding strong sentence hinting in one direction without stressing this concept, means it's up to me to balance the article now. So it's relevant, beacuse unbalanced articles have bigger chance to be deleted.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author: BTW, should we also cat=S (Society topics) to this deletion procedure? If I have to enlarge the article citing also the impact on national newspapers of Orsini's article deletion that means it's a social topic as well, including all the international debate about the position of Italian pundits on this geopolitical topic (see sources). This kinda goes beyond the person. Also the themes addressed by him are in the field of sociology, they are used as sources even here for these topic, editors who write about these issues might have a qualified opinion why the author of the sources needs a contextualization. So cat=S is a correct tag as well --Alexmar983 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep]: NO, don't delete Professor Alessandro Orsini's page, please. (not signed comment by IP 80.183.58.139, move here)
  • Comment by author: I point out that sourced information is now removed from the article with undo. This sort of behaviour is the kind that should not occur during a deletion procedure. It would have been better to discuss in the talk page, than start a AfD. I am not very comfortable here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Russian invasion in Ukraine, Alessandro Orsini was an unknown professor whose main field of research was the left-wing terrorism in Italy. As stated by someone else already, his works have not made a particular impact on the public debate in Italy or in the academic world on this topic. He became known to the Italian public for his controversial statements on the war in Ukraine and other recent statement (like Hitler didn't want to start the II world world and children were happy during the fascism period).
Also this page cannot be used as Alessandro Orsini CV. Also I find quite bizarre that Alexmar983 wrote that Orsini 'became one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows', considering he started to appear frequently as a guest in different Italian talk-shows just two months ago.
The page in the Italian wikipedia of Alessandro Orsini is still a draft. If the Wikipedia English version will be kept, this page will be added mainly for the controversial statements of the person rather than for his academic contributions. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote something that is in the source: "è diventato uno dei volti più noti dei talk show italiani che approfondiscono il tema del conflitto." Not bizzare at all, and indirectly proven by the fuzz of the deletion of its page. And tha academic contribution were enough in 2021 to prove relevance in the field. See the discussion about the book and the source in German of 2019.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Orsini has become one of the best-known faces in the Italian talk shows covering the topic of the conflict (war in Ukraine)" and instead you wrote "has become one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows'. Plus there is a difference between an article from a newspaper and a page in an online encyclopedia like wikipedia. This sentence will be valid after the end of the conflict when Orsini will not be invited anymore as a guest?
Anyway, I want to stress again that Alessandro Orsini was an unknown academic, before the war in Ukraine and his controversial statements. His published works in his specialised field never made an impact and this page cannot be used as a personal CV. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
volto noto and Il più discusso ospite di talk show televisivi del momento ... you have to express the concept somehow that he is really known. People recognizes his face, which is what notability means. So don't undo in these cases. Discuss, ask for more sources, put a template in ns0. It's clear that you will keep inserting or make me insert more and more sources that will prove the notability about this aspect (which is already enough per se to keep, per notability guidelines). Which proves to me that we should have not helped an IP to open an AfD, but teach them to discuss in the talk page about the content first. I will add both sources in the next days, please agree on a formulation that will fit in your opinion at the end of the conflict. it has been two months that newspaper about every single sentence he days, so...
Anyway, you already stressed your position. I can't do anything that reminding you the sources, start on those not on what you think in general. Also, if you think this page has a CV style, that should have been a suggestion for the motivation of the AfD, although it can be disproved quite easily. It does not focus very much on the publications and academic positions.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't use the source correctly, citing the sentence partially. And the new links you have mentioned now, they say respectively 'known face' and 'the most discussed talk show guest at the moment'. You should also add the English translation (for non Italian speakers), if you write something in a language different than English.
Regarding the source, it is fair to use it correctly and not reporting the sentence omitting some parts that can change the meaning of it.
Also as an IP, I have the right to contribute to Wikipedia and to discuss regarding an AfD.
This biography page of Alessandro Orsini has not been approved on the Wikipedia Italian, where actually the person is known. Exactly why should this page have relevance in the English version?
I also find contradictory that you say that this page has not been built as a CV, when creating and writing this page you have added even the personal Facebook page of Alessandro Orsini. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep thinking that this a discussion related to editing so should have been started teaching you how to edit and discuss in the talk page of the article before opening AfD. Especially this strange contradictory AfD where somebody might keep it but open it to express what you might think, which now seems something else. You needed to gain more expertise, maybe opening a AfD later.
Having a FB link that does not prove the article is a CV, and you are really exaggerating this aspect. it was evaluated by many users on the way before you in many weeks and nobody defined it a CV, because it is not. Also you don't know yet how to read the history of a page. I did not add any FB link, I am very tolerant considering nowadays social media are closer to a personal webpage, so would be a Twitter profile. I add these things all the time also on Wikidata, but I usually don't care about those here.
Beware: someone else would have started to point out that accusing me of putting something I did not put is a bad-faith attempt. You are just not expert, which is a shame and it would have been better, since this is probably notable, to have this discussion in the talk page so you could have been trained.
Also, you can be an IP or a user, but you lacked some literacy. I just hoped you could become a more trained editor before this opening. It's not wise to put a newbie with starting editing skills and limited knowledge of guidelines in AfD, one of the most time-consuming process sometimes. For examples, in theory now we have to focus on the content in ns0 and here, and this is not good for the article. Normally, poorly-edited deletion attempts can be removed and not-so-expert users can learn a little bit more. Here I have to train you in good faith but since you think this is confrontational, you accuse me. That's not fair.
Normal users can use on-line translators, it's really simple. I prefer everybody to do that themselves so they can use a third party service and it is not up to me because someone will accuse me of not translating correctly (I know...). I found bizarre to be lectured about sources since I am the one who had to move the discussion on them, you were more inclined to very generic statements. Another source: il professore più controverso della Tv... you can't be the most controversial if people do not compare to all the other ones, so it means you are known. In this case they made a specific dedicated article just about him.
This "unknown academic" was known on his own. I was improving that part before we ended up here. But also "pop" notability is ok, they are all some notability. However, a contradiction in this discussion is that according to you, dear British IP friend, his presence on the media is transient and this is an encylopedia, so we should not stress too much about how notable he is because of mass media and disregard this part. Yet, if a newspaper extrapolates a quote from the guy and makes an article about it, which is occurring a lot recently, that quote is the most transient thing you can find as a source, but it can be stuffed in the article according to you, and you do so. So in other words, this adding of sources implicitly recognized the notabilty because of press coverage. So... why are we here debating about the opposite? You should not add more of those, you should remove them all. Do you see this?
In the end, I am a decent person, with a name and a surname, who edited an article of a notable figure based on old and new and academic and general sources, in many languages. I don't want to spend a week to balance a cherry-picking of sources instead of adding more academic ones, which is what I would have done probably.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite distasteful that you checked my IP to see where I have been writing from and you have addressed me as 'dear British friend' (ironically). You have already stressed enough how illiterate I am on Wikipedia! Ok, that's fine!
But even adding irrelevant award (Cimitile Prize without even a website page related to the award) to the page of Alessandro Orsini, it doesn't change the fact this person has become known only for his recent controversial statements and not for his academic contribution! 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was kinda necessary in view of a long and complex AfD, see comment here. It's more distasteful IMHO to constantly look for accusations, but personal tastes I guess.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Alessandro Orsini does not fulfil any of the notability criteria for academics, as defined by Wikipedia. He has become known to the public not through his academic achievements, but through his statements in talk-shows, that do not represent independent reliable secondary sources. His research has not had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He has won no major international prizes, etc. Essentially he has not fulfilled ANY of the notability criteria for academics. He is not even widely cited, his h-index is very low.Morningbastet (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
he was known to the public also because of a scandal about promotions, this is part that could have been enlarged. That's also why there is an article in German citing him as relevant in his field, for example. Than he became known for the end of the contract in late February, than for the deletion of the article on itWikipedia, than again for every minor statements he says as it is now. But you can combine the last three as a unicum (a big one). Also the criteria are respected in points 1 (significant impact is the book about Red Brigades), 2 (the awards are national), maybe 5 (he was chair of a specific institution of the University until yesterday, that basically existed because of him). That's why I never enlarged with pleasure the "controversies" part, it's transient and people overthink about it ignoring the rest. Although all combined, the stuff of the press coverage kinda prove also point 7. At this point someone will criticize all of them, but it's more fair than citing generically they are not met at all. You need to demolish all four of them to prove he is not relevant as an academic. Which you will maybe, but I have met researchers here with much limited impact. That's why years ago the page was almost kept.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983 Being "known to the public because of a scandal about promotions" has nothing to do with academic notability. There need to be multiple independent articles from independent sources to support academic notability. Luiss University does not have a high ranking internationally, and Associate professorship is far from being equal with fame, in the absence of multiple independent sources of some weight that state his notability in the field. This article is likely a promotion/advertisement. The chair at Luiss was terminated and Luiss issued a statement distancing itself from the controversial statements of Orsini. Notability, not lack of notability, must be proven. This article only reports the controversies, which did not occur in an academic setting, but in Italian TV talk shows that have nothing to do with academic settings. The Orsini biographical article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, this means that for a researcher that has done essentially all of his training in Italy, he does not even merit notability in Italy. In the anglophone world he is even less well known. Several of the sources cited in the article have not been validated as independent reliable sources with a good reputation for soundness and journalistic rigorous. At most, the name of Orsini could marginally deserve to be mentioned only in an article listing controversies on Italian TV talk shows, about the different proposals of responses/policies concerning the war waged by Russia on Ukraine. But he certainly not a notable academic, he simply does not fulfil the criteria.Morningbastet (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am already out of this so don't ping me. BTW "only the controversies" is too much. Probably when I was looking for academic sources and inserting them I was aomewhere else... Seen many times: someone stuff the articles with controversies and later someone else act as if it's the only thing there. And than if you talk about open aspect (academic relevance), the subject shift on the "controversies", and vice versa. Very unhealthy.
Also, the part about deletion on itwiki is wrong. Even national newspaper reported it as done for formal reasons not related to the content because many many people found it quite bizarre. Besides that, using itwikipedia, which has higher threshold of notability and is usually criticized for that, to detect relevance in Italy is poor method (not the first time these things occur, may I remind you the Aranzulla case?). Using a wiki in general is poor method, such a disregard for sources. May I remind you also that we come from a 10-years scandal of hr.wiki about political aspects? That's why it would be wise to stick to the sources.
I wonder how many people will reappear in this AfD after many weeks or months of inactivity just to state such "stretched" interpretations of reality. How many of them will be anonymous? I won't know, I am out of here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also you should stop writing that Wikipedia Italian has blocked the publication of Alessandro Orsini page. Here some reliable news sources that prove your claims are untrue:
https://www.tpi.it/cronaca/wikipedia-cancella-biografia-professor-orsini-perche-non-ha-senso-parlare-censura-20220319881084/
https://www.bufale.net/scompare-alessandro-orsini-da-wikipedia-il-motivo-ufficiale-non-compreso-dai-complottisti/ 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what are you talking about? He never said anything that is false. Alexmar983 correctly claimed that it.wikipedia is controversial related to notability and should never be used to assess it. For example, may I remind you recently the deletion of Vladimiro Giacché's article?
Also, you pointed out with third-party sources that even the very selective Italian wikipedia could not disproof the notability of Orsini.
—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I checked IP because, as I predicted, IPs were going to be actively involved here (nobody wants to use their name of such public figure) and it's the only way to get an idea if you are no check-user to know who's who because they might change. For example 193.207.xx probably added a source in the article, but with a different ending (193.207.210.18). Interestingly, it looks like the two IPs who were against the notability are from UK and Sweden, all the other pro-keep IPs seem to be Italian. There might be exceptions later, just a curious fact.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete: As pointed out by Morningbastet, Orsini does not fulfill any of Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. I've been hesitating for a couple of days because he has arguably been "notable" in Italian mass media (mainly talk shows and tabloids) since March, for expressing views on topics outside of his academic specialty. But this seems to be a fallacy known as WP:ITSINTHENEWS. The only way I see him still being of public interest half a year from now is if he pivots from academia to politics (there is talk of that), in which case a Wikipedia page might be warranted under "politician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.195.49.49 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. Something that is temporarily in the news is not worth to be in an encyclopedia, but this is not the case. There was in-depth coverage, and an evolution of sources. this one point out for example clearly not only that Orsini is worth a dedicated article on a national magazine but also states the Orsini was already on TV before 2022. this other source involving Orsini dates back to 2007. It's a little bit nuanced than an explosion of interest after February. That's why I was very skeptical about enlarging the 2022 section and I think I was right.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even the very rigid Italian Wikipedia cannot disproof the notability of Orsini. They are debating when (not if) to move it right now!
Discussing about recent information is unpractical, considering the coverage in older and more stable sources. Orsini did not just appear only now on newspaper, he was already cited in the past. All these details are however too recent and controversial. For example here orsini is very critical of the reconstruction of the closure of the department given by newspapers, so it's the sort of critical topic that should be taken with calm later.
The first part, the one which was enlarged before the AfD was opened, was the most useful one, it's strange to "help" pushing in this territory, IMHO.
The English version of its book about Italian Red Brigades is massively cited in theliterature It's probably woth an article per se.
That's why he fulfills the general guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics)—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 'rigid' Italian Wikipedia? The page has not yet been approved. Full stop.
To support the fact that Orsini's book is 'massively' cited (according to whom?) you literally posted a link to a post from Orsini Facebook personal page. And regarding the other link (which is to Google scholar) and you restrict the research to 'scientific articles', the result for citations is just 1 (ONE). I am speechless about your misleading comment. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GS is not restricted to only scientific articles. See his profile there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Also I want to point out that the 424 citation on Google Scholar are referring to two different people named 'Alessandro Orsini'. And most of them have been published not by the sociologist, but a researcher in pediatric neurology.85.211.232.197 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IP said in the literature, not "in the academic literature". Also, as a person who created with another user the Wikidata items of these people to avoid confusion, and I hope a decent expert of bibliometry, I remind you that citations are not potatoes, they vary per sector. I agree that the book about the Red Brigades, which also shows more citations under its Italian titles and was debated over the years, it's probably worth an article per se.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Facebook link was never used to proved the citations by the IP, it's there to remind that recent news-related information should not be "stuffed" in an article, they are controversial and unstable. I agree with that, there were plenty of sources on the way and available way more stable, but someone really wanted to go this way. In any case, if there are sources entirely dedicated to Orsini, as a whole (that is, in-depth coverage), they seem to be ignored even if recent.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live in Italy. Everyone I know, in my circle of friends and acquaintances, knows Alessandro Orsini. In 2018, not everyone knew him, but he gave a speech in the Italian National Parliament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k4B_h4Gkc). Therefore, there's no reasonable doubt about him deserving to appear on the Italian wikipedia; but there may be reasonable doubts about the Italian wikipedia deserving to have a page on him, given the way they are dealing with the issue of the final approval of his page [36]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto cassone (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author: I am here again because I have just connected the itwikipedia article on Wikidata. So I was curious to read here how it was going. Now, itwikipedia can do whatever they want (maybe they will put it back on the draft? The consensus for the move was however pretty clear)... as you can imagine from some comments here, the whole story turned out to be already a discrete disaster of communication during the last weeks, but it's wrong in general to use other versions to evaluate notability.Maybe now this aspect will be very much appreciated, who knows...
In any case few people with a name and a surname will ever make a public statement that Orsini is not notable here in Italy. Even agreeing on high standards of notability, this person was on the national and academic sources already years ago and there are so many sources of different types over the years that you cannot possibly get consensus for the deletion, which is something it should have been explained to people with limited competence instead of pushing for AfD.
I might say, I disagree with the concept discussed on itwikipedia that the page should not have been published because of possible tensions despite being notable. From a practical point of view, the page can be handled. For example, here it remained for circa two weeks, no big deal. Experts users approved, it was there to be enlarged... Only the AfD attracted the noise and made impossible to discuss properly about the content. Personally, I won't do as well. too much bile, there at least three clearly false accusations in this procedure.
At least we are lucky this AfD did not arrive on national newspapers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I note that, further to discussion on this point above, Italian Wikipedia has now promoted this subject to article space. I view their collection of activities as sufficient to merit inclusion here, also. BD2412 T 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment by author: I was away from here from nine days. That looks like a considerable amnount of time. In the meantime, I see people commenting every issue including reporting false accusations, but nobody cared. That looks like bludgeoning but wasn't it a problem at all? it.wikipedia was not relevant but why stating it to the only person who said so and not to the people who used it for days?
I know that not writing or writing again after nine days would have made no difference in the result, but I think a reader should notice this as well because I will not pay the price for everyone. I know it's easier that way, to blame just one person, but it's not correct. The problem was opening the AfD so rapidly. As usual, I am out, I was only here because I connected the itwiki version--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete, I agree with the others saying that he ultimately became famous in Italy because of his strong controversies on Russian conflict, not much for his academics studies --Broncoviz (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Behind the Bash

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

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

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

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

James Rhine

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

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

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

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

  • Delete This was supposed to remain a redirect before it was turned into an article with apparent WP:OR and unsourced content. I see there is not enough content or sources to justify a stand-alone article. >>> Extorc.talk 06:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Salif Gueye

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

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

The page have been improved, and added another achievements of artist. Rma17 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rma17 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Keep: The page have been improved, and added another achievements of artist. Rma17 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Comment Just want to note that Salif does have 2.3 million instagram followers - and while I'd hardly want Wikipedia to be composed by the basis of how many social media followers a person has, it does lend credibility that the individual has some degree of following / "real world notability" and isn't simply a backup dancer or similar A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Salif Gueye's name is already on Wikipedia in another pages. He performed in Montreux Jazz Festival, Michael Jackson night, etc. Also Michael JAckson's official site adds Salif Gueye's performs. He called Next to Michael Jackson and continues his history. Rma17 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I31f6OOtbkE&list=WL&index=22&t=35s Rma17 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Followed are not a good measure. Followers and likes can both and are often bought. PRAXIDICAE💕 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Salif Gueye have verified instagram account. It means followers and likes are real. Rma17 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it absolutely doesn't. Instagram doesn't verify each follower of verified accounts. Get real. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They cannot check each follower one by one. Fake followers makes low activity of profile, which instagram can check: Followers are raising, Activity is going down. Actually Instagram gives verify for famous people. Rma17 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If u thinks that his followers and likes are boughted, check the comments (2500). Rma17 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some screen saves from Salif's instagram profile. People recognizing him and taking picture with him. He is famous one in his early age. Rma17 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is policy based. Please do not bludgeon the conversation if you're not going to provide policy based input. Star Mississippi 02:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Patrick Clark (host)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mamosta

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

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

Logs: 2022-04 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Amitriyaan

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tawker (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure in what universe this isn't a raging advertisement, but he also doesn't appear to be notable. He's had a few film roles but nothing that's received particularly significant coverage and most of what is in the article is blatant mass produced Indian churnalism. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With more than 8 movies as a lead and parallel lead roles and 2 webseries and still page is being discussed to be deleted is lil strange . Many actors who have not even done even half of Amit Riyaan's work profile are already on Wikipedia . Someone called praxidicae put the point it's ' Indian churnalism ' . It itself sound RACIST and biased with half knowledge . regarding coverage in today's world
    almost  everything is bought in media world and gets covered. That is real advertisement more than work profile. Someone who has niche fan following and isn't into bought media coverage is being discussed for advertisement issue is not at all logical and fair . Sandeepth2785 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandeepth2785 The media in India, especially the entertainment media, has a few respected outlets. Those which are not respected rehash PR stories. This is termed churnalism. While Praxidicae might possibly have explained this in more detail it is an unfortunate fact that most entertainment media in India has a less than stellar reputation.
    Since churnalism in this class of media is a fact, and 'Indian food' is not a racially unacceptable term, it is a large leap to suggest that the deployment of the term 'Indian churnalism' is racially motivated. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see WP:ADMASQ here. I have sample checked the references and find interviews with Riyaan, material about some of the things he has been in but not necessarily mentioning him, and nothing to show that he passes WP:NACTOR. I see a jobbig actor who may make it one day. At best it is WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The outcome of the deletion discussion is not helped by a copyright picture having been uploaded to Commons and included (for now) in the Infobox 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now a further unpermissioned picture added to the article is at Commons 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 27. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first order of notability of a living person is sourcing. The bar is raised higher than with other articles and must follow Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. There should be multiple independent and reliable sources that providing significant coverage to advance notability.
There is no set number but at least three would be enough to "convince anybody". There is a difference in a source that supports content and one that advance notability even though the last can certainly also support content.
The first source I checked, about a feature film titled "Zee5 Movie: Atkan Chatkan; Cast: Lydian Nadhaswaram, Yash Rane, Sachin Chaudhary, Tamanna Dipak, Ayesha Vindhara; Direction: Shiv Hare; Rating", was confusing and disappointing.
I am not up to date on "Indian churnalism" but coud imagine this might be an appropriate discription. I do not think anyone should have to dig around to try to be convinced there is notability. If sourcing is not improvable then notability is absolutetly not proven. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Tristan Walker (entrepreneur)

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tawker (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Hi there - I removed a couple of moments of quotations that might have been read as promotional. There's a ton of reputable sources about this person and the research done here was comprehensive, not just cherrypicking positive things. It's an account of the things he's done in his career. BubbleBub (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've opened three sources, all substantive features, from USA Today, NPR and CNBC, and this is obviously a notable subject from what I'm seeing. Easily meets WP:GNG. If it's promotional, rewrite, but there's plenty to work with here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the latest here? We can wait another week and then I'll remove template? If you think it'd be helpful, Tawker, maybe we could cross-post the discussion a couple other places? BubbleBub (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep if there are several sources that establish notability, as the nominator suggests, then the article should be rewritten to be less promotional, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article would benefit from some editing, but that does not change the fact that the subject is notable. The amount of sigcov is not trivial. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Sunday Pants

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

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

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

  • Delete Only relevant GNews result is a listicle published on a forum. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Dodson and Fogg

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

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

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

  • Merge and redirect per TF (above) and ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The Scorseses

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

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

Logs: 2011-04 ✗ PROD
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:NMUSIC. I was thinking maybe it could pass by virtue of having released two albums on a major label (criterion 5), but it seems that their ungoogleable first album, Magnumopus, was self-released, as on iTunes it is copyright "The Scorceses LLC." I'll note that, by virtue of the name of this band, it is quite hard to find any coverage, particularly WP:RS. Lkb335 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Uzma Alkarim

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

  • STRONG KEEP, I have modified upto some extent ( and yes I can expand the article as well) with secondary citations removing all the primary citations. --- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new sources aren't even about her for the most part and the interview is a primary source. SL93 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ralston Cash

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep, appears to pass GNG per Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the four articles linked by Alvadi. All four are detailed articles on Cash, and all four are from reliable secondary sources. Hatman31 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Python Paste

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eroica Classical Recordings

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

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

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

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

  • Delete as per nom. This ought to be beyond uncontroversial: there are zero independent sources. At this stage, this is not remotely well-attested enough to come near WP:NCORP.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a company therefore NCORP applies, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

G4's Late Night Peepshow

G4's Late Night Peepshow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Mohsen Naghavi

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Iran. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has huge citations for publications with many authors, as the nomination states. But even just looking at first-author papers he has citation counts of 3424 ("Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death"), 540 ("The burden of disease and injury in Iran 2003"), 469 ("Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data"), 456 ("Global, regional, and national burden of suicide mortality 1990 to 2016"), etc. I think this is enough to demonstrate a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be re-written properly.--- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

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

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

G4's Training Camp

G4's Training Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Grace

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha Jallow

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

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

I personally created this article on behalf of my player Alpha Jallow. I basically used Alphaj97 to create his article because I have many players which am managing and I cannot remember every username. Centric Sports Management is my agency name. Here is the link of my agency name on Transfermarket including all the players I am managing and Alpha Jallow is among them; https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/centric-sports-management/beraterfirma/berater/7062 Alphaj97 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to make a formal declaration of this. Instructions have been left on your talk page. You are also required to disclose any other accounts that you are operating per WP:SOCK. Please do not carry on editing until this has been done. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I would never violate Wikipedia policy. I voluntary created this article and I do not hold or operating under any other accounts apart from Alphaj97, email: socceragentuk@gmail.com Alphaj97 (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This completely contradicts your post just above where you say and I quote "my player Alpha Jallow" and "I basically used Alphaj97 to create his article because I have many players which am managing and I cannot remember every username." In the second sentence you admit to using more than one account and you admit to managing this player. This is a conflict of interest per WP:COI and you absolutely need to declare this. Repeated failure to do so will lead to you losing your editing privileges. You are employed by Centric Sports Management and so have a clear conflict of interest here. I will send you another warning on your talk page. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not like Samuel Eto'o or Drogba because he has not play for Barcelona or Chelsea but believe me where he came from he is notable. He is on FIFA TMS because he is professional. Every young talent professional need a chance to be seen on Wikipedia if the sources are verifiable. He's case all the sources on the page are verifiable. I am not here to attack anyone but before going ahead and propose for a deletion, you should how these young talent professionals are working so hard to fulfil their dreams in the higher level. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    seven sources lacks significant coverage? Are you serious? Just because you don't know or have not heard the name of the subject does not mean you have to be judgemental. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alphaj97 My prior knowledge of the player is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is if it can be shown that the player has multiple sources of significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. Database links like these[41][42][43][44] do not go towards GNG per WP:NOTDATABASE. Of the other three, none is WP:SIGCOV as they don't address the subject in much detail, they just state that he was signed and then fired 24 hours later. Even if those where significant sources, they are all from July 2019 which is not WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the point. I am an Intermediary Football Agent based in the United Kingdom, I worked with several many players mainly from Africa and Asia. I have been following this subject since 2015 on his journey. He is listed on Wikipedia under "Foreign players played in India" scrol down to "Gambia"and you see his name under the club name "Prayag United SC".
    However, one of the reason I created this article for the subject is because Wikipedia have not created one for him back then when he was eligible for it. In 2020 the subject got an injury (knee fracture). He is still recovering from that trauma was unable to compete for two years. I suggest you know these people and what their going through before making judgments. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alphaj97 My opinion and !vote is purely based on the lack of significant coverage about this individual. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nore is it a place to right great wrongs so while it is sad to hear about his injuries, they don't have any bearings on this discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His injury do not have any bearings on this discussion I know that. I mentioned it, so you know his conditions before blindly voting for deletion. All the sources provided here are verifiable and legit. I do not understand why people are so bias. I rest my case. Alphaj97 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete THe sources cited are entirely insufficient to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have work in football industry for the past 19 years but I have never seen this type of temperament from public. I often came across with a lot of wikipedia pages with only one or two sources outdated and they have never been deleted. Is it because the subject "Alpha Jallow" does not have an updated sources which makes him ineligible for wikipedia page? It is unfair judgement.
    Simply because their not notable in your eyes does not mean where they came from they are not. As an African player abroad, everybody in your native country and environment probably have heard about about you. Is very sad to see this judgements. Alphaj97 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't complicated. To qualify for an article, it needs to be demonstrated that the subject (Jarrow in this case) has had significant coverage in independent sources. 'Significant' as understood from the relevant policies, as interpreted by contributors with experience of how they apply. Not 'significant' because someone connected with the subject says it isn't fair otherwise. Not 'significant' because someone connected with the subject makes unverifiable claims about 'everybody' knows. This is an entirely routine procedure on Wikipedia. People with conflicts of interest routinely get their attempts at promotion deleted. If you have contributed to Wikipedia before, but have yet to become aware of this, that is unfortunate, but that is how it works. I suggest you stop badgering people here, and let the discussion run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per source analysis below, fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC. Not even a case of WP:ONEEVENT as the one event itself that provided routine coverage (him signing for an amateur Turkish club then being swiftly dismissed) is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.playmakerstats.com/player.php?id=675093 Yes Yes No Stats page, no coverage ✘ No
https://www.zerozero.pt/equipa.php?id=3548&epoca_id=148 Yes Yes No Stats ✘ No
https://soccer.everythingforfootball.com/player/alpha-jallow-1997/ ? ? No Stats ✘ No
https://afrinik.com/gambian-footballer-alpha-jallow-fired-24-hours-after-signing/ Yes Yes No Not significant. We know that he signed for the club then was dismissed. We know that he is Gambian. No other info about the player is discussed. ✘ No
https://africafeeds.com/2019/07/21/the-gambian-footballer-signed-and-sacked-in-a-day/ Yes Yes No Little coverage. Talks a bit about Lamin Jallow but not much depth about Alpha ✘ No
https://www.trtspor.com.tr/haber/futbol/menemensporda-cifte-imza-187002.html Yes Yes No Routine transfer announcement ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject only had three years of his career from 2016-2019. He has a brighter future ahead of him, to achieve his dreams. Injury is every athlete's nightmare. I would continue to help him achieve his dream with or without wikipedia page. As soon as he recovers he will get back to the pitch.
You are the wikipedia administrator, whatever you decide I will take it in good faith but I will suggest keeping his page until he gets back on his feet. Thank you! Alphaj97 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim to future notability is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If he does indeed carve a successful career later on, then the article can be created again. We shouldn't create articles on the off chance that they might be notable in the future. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not written on off chance basis. He is indeed notable. Alphaj97 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG at the moment as there is no significant references to his career so far. If as above he comes back from his injury and gets significant coverage then article can always be recreated then but as it stands now, it fails.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder why so much hate in here. SMH Alphaj97 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

2020 Libertarian National Committee chair election

2020 Libertarian National Committee chair election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Midnight Spank

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MMO Report

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

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

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

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

MTV Malibu Beach House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Own

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

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Murphy, Jill (2022-02-28). "My Own. TV review by Jill Murphy, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The review notes: "My Own takes celebrity worship to a new low. Not only does it emphasize the importance of appearance, but it goes a step farther and rewards those who happen to resemble someone famous. This is a damaging message to tweens and teens, who are forming their identity and ideas about how dating works -- they're already under enough pressure to look good, but now they need to look like a celebrity too? What ever happened to individuality? The show also offers the confusing idea that the best way to show you're a fan is to date someone who reminds you of your idol...huh?"

    2. Jones, Jen (April 2006). "MTV Moves". Dance Spirit. Vol. 10, no. 4. p. 112. ProQuest 209289734. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "On MTV's new dating show "My Own," enthusiastic wannabes are transformed into carbon copies of the pop stars they idolize, in hopes of capturing a fellow fan's heart. Though training these budding Justins and Ciaras may sound like a tall task, the mission was far from impossible for the show's choreographer, Chantai Robson. Off-screen, Robson has made a career out of coaching up-and-coming artists such as Hope Seven on personality and performance. To prepare choreography for "My Own," Robson watched hours of music videos to adapt the moves for contestants. [The show airs 6 pm EST Monday through Friday.) On a shooting schedule of several shows per week, Robson found herself memorizing the dance steps of everyone from Ashlee Simpson to Jennifer Lopez at a breakneck pace. Added to the pressure was the challenge of getting the contestants camera-ready to perform."

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

    Cunard (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

These two sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NOT. Delete.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE refers to events and thus isn't applicable here. NemesisAT (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree. A TV show is a string of events. One review and one short interview are simply nothing but indication of routine coverage. You can expect this from every single TV show that has existed, ever. Lurking shadow (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage, which does not apply to television series, which are not events. My Own received substantial coverage in a review and significant coverage in an article about the show's choreographer's work on the show. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Overtone (musical group)

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

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

  • Comment. I haven't made my mind up yet about the article, but I'm not sure if any of the links you've provided would qualify as WP:RS. Park3r (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per criterion 10 of WP:BAND, having performed half the soundtrack of Invictus in tandem with a small amount of coverage, mostly related to the group's connection with the Eastwoods 1 2 3 4 5. It's not mentioned in the article, but the band were also stars of Mrs. Eastwood & Company. All of those separately would not qualify this group for its own article, but put all together, I'm inclined to keep. That being said, the article needs serious work. Lkb335 (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Pirate TV (TV series)

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

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Waters, Harry F. (1990-03-19). "Down to the sea in shtik. MTV's undry humor". Newsweek. Vol. 115, no. 12. p. 55. ISSN 0028-9604. EBSCOhost 9003191019.

      The article notes: "Each week "Pirate TV's" scruffy crew. supposedly transmitting from a barge off Manhattan, take aim at the deadliest forms of airwave pollution. Commercials, for openers. Among the products pitched so far are a cat food called Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whiskers and a fantasy-based video game known as Dungeons and Drag Queens. A spoof of ESPN introduced the Extra-Sensory Perception Network (Filmed highlights of tomorrow's games! Lists of players who are going to be injured!) Semiregular features include "Rastapiece Theater," which presents dreadlock versions of the classics, and "The Above Sea World of Jacques Cousteau," wherein the crew of the Calypso invades dry land to liberate the fish in pet stores. ("Fortunately, Armand's spear gun makes quick work of the would-be slave trader and we are able to free our tiny friends.") ... MTV's programmers are so delighted with "Pirate TV"--it has tripled the ratings for its Friday-night slot--that they're considering moving it to Saturday night to compete with NBC's comedic powerhouse."

    2. Takiff, Jonathan. (1990-01-25). "Just When You Thought It Was Boring ... MTV Gets a New Attitude" (pages 1 and 2). Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Primo pick of the new MTV litter is "Pirate TV," debuting tomorrow night at 10 with a repeat broadcast at 7 p.m. Spinning of Britain's real-life pirate radio stations — illegal broadcasters headquartered on boats in international waters — this hour-long fantasy imagines a troupe of technocrats commandeering MTV's signal from a beat-up barge off the coast of New York City. Like SCTV, Pirate TV sends up TV shows and commercials with gambits like "The Above Sea World of Jacques Cousteau," wherein our daring, wet-suited explorers venture onto dry land to free the captive animals in a pet store. Maury Povich makes a guest appearance to claim credit for the "Pirate TV" concept (actually, a couple of his former writers now produce this MTV show) and ... "Pirate TV" is so densely packed with gags and mimicry that I can't believe the show can be cranked out on a weekly basis for long."

    3. Swift, David (1990-04-04). "Doublespeak, anguished English, life after videos". Jackson Hole News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "I hope "Pirate TV" shows up, at any rate, because it's the first television show I've seen to come close to matching the sheer energy and irreverence of underground radio in the Sixties. SCTV-style, the "Pirate TV" cast, a collection of ne'er-do-wells, cruises off the coast, in international waters, interrupting normal broadcasting with their version of good television. Among their offerings: [a list with four bullet points]"

    4. Miller, Ron (1990-01-22). "Some radical changes at revolutionary MTV". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "I've seen clips from one new show, Pirate TV, which premieres Friday night, and it's truly different from the usual MTV fare. It has a cast of "regulars," bizarre characters who are supposed to be running a pirate TV station in a barge off the coast of New York. They put on parodies of commercials, movie trailers and other short comedy bits. ... Maybe the funniest, though, was the takeoff on the anti-drug ads that show an egg frying in a pan to illustrate what your brain is like on drugs. This shows you what your brain looks like on drugs — with a side of bacon and whole wheat toast."

    5. Duffy, Mike (1990-02-04). "Newcomers to MTV are musical — and a whole lot more". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Pirate TV": Floating around on their own barge while transmitting a whacked mix of commercial parodies and weirdo programming, a gang of youthful pirates takes control of MTV for an hour of comedy and videos every week. Program manager Brian, sidekick Skip and a crew of addled assistants create the mayhem. Including such nutcase moments as pro wrestler Sargeant Slaughter singing "Sunrise, Sunset" or tabloid TV star Maury Povich reading "A Current Affair Bedtime Story." Fridays at 10 p.m."

    6. Larson, Lanny (1990-02-09). "'Pirate TV' Crew Takes Over MTV". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The caption provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The caption notes: "It looks like MTV until the "pirates," a crew of comics, take over twice each weekend, substituting off-the-wall weirdness and a few videos from the relatively staid programming on the cable music network."

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

    Cunard (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep based on sources listed above by Cunard, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several sources, some dedicated to the show, someone with dedicated coverage about the show in wider article about MTV shows. Passess GNG. I have cited two of Cunard's sources in article to deal with no citations maintained tag. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Pulse (American TV series)

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

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

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

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

Revealed with Jules Asner

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

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Collins, Monica (2002-04-21). "TV Plus - Clickers - News channels spinning the facts". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "E! seems to be throwing its full weight behind Jules Asner and her series "Revealed" (10 p.m. weeknights), in which Asner slobbers over stars. Asner doesn't work hard. All she does is latch onto the latest celebrity who's plugging a new movie and then she lobs embarrassing softball questions. Nothing's "revealed" except that Asner can't ask anything tough or truly revealing. Her interview with Celine Dion was nauseatingly sugary. On Wednesday, Asner goes toe-to-toe with Angelina Jolie, the star who has committed many sharing violations and spills more than you ever wanted to know. Even in this situation, count on Asner to tread lightly. The title of the show should be changed from "Revealed With Jules Asner" to "Congealed With Jules Asner" because each interview turns into a sticky, sycophantic mess."

    2. "Asner chats with stars; '20/20' visits the Bushes". The Standard-Times. 2001-12-04. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "E! kicks off the new interview series "Revealed with Jules Asner" with back-to-back chats with two of Hollywood's biggest stars. The "E! Daily News" host talks with George Clooney at 8 p.m., followed by Julia Roberts at 9 p.m. Both actors discuss their roles in the forthcoming film "Ocean's Eleven," the remake of the 1960 Rat Pack heist movie.  ... Asner promises to get personal stories from her subjects and share early screen tests and other visual goodies with her audience. "Revealed" will air on Wednesdays at 10 p.m., beginning on Dec. 12."

    3. Grego, Melissa (2001-12-10). "'Jules' Rules E! Ratings". Daily Variety. Vol. 274, no. 6. p. 8. ISSN 0011-5509. ProQuest 5720333.

      The article notes: "E! Entertainment Television's two-hour preem of bio skein “Revealed With Jules Asner” rated higher than any other series preem in the basic cabler's 11-year history.  The two-parter featuring segs on “Ocean's Eleven” stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts, from 8–10 p.m. on Wednesday, averaged a .93 cable rating, or 707,000 households. The first part, on Clooney, earned an average .84 cable rating (640,000); viewership went up during the Roberts seg to a 1.01 cable rating (823,000 households)."

    4. Gay, Jason (2003-04-14). "Aaron Brown's 'Weird' Science". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "now she hosts her own show, Revealed with Jules Asner , a perfectly pleasant interview show with all the hot young newsmakers from the world of entertainment. ... Ms. Asner was being a little tough on herself. She's managed to get a number of stars to open up about themselves, and she's learned to ask the tough questions, too. ... Ms. Asner said that when she first started doing Revealed , the people behind the show wanted her to ask stars how they lost their virginity. She said she wouldn't do it."

    5. Rosenthal, Phil (2001-12-12). "Repairs ahead on 'Sesame St.'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Maybe that "Ocean's Eleven" overkill wasn't so dumb after all. It helped E! Entertainment Television's two-hour premiere of bio series "Revealed With Jules Asner" to the cable outlet's highest ratings for a series debut in its 11-year history.  Asner's George Clooney interview attracted 640,000 homes, and her chat with Julia Roberts drew 823,000. It probably didn't hurt that Asner is dating "Ocean's" director Steven Soderbergh. "

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

    Cunard (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

School of Hard Knocks (TV series)

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

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Smith, Giles. "Will Greenwood takes soft approach to hard knock life". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-10-13. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "Would the world be a better place if a few more people played rugby? That’s the question boldly asked by School of Hard Knocks, the Sky Sports reality series, which cites in support of the proposition the “motivation, discipline and respect” that rugby union offers as standard, and is also bold enough to intimate that the answer might be yes. ... Now, though, in goes School of Hard Knocks, scouring deprived Haringey (as, in previous series, it scoured the East End of London and Croydon), luring the disaffected with the promise of competitive rugby (and a role in a television show; we shouldn’t leave that potential clincher out of the motivational package) and offering a glimpse of redemption in a session on the tackle pads with Scott Quinnell."

    2. Kitson, Robert (2014-02-28). "School of Hard Knocks documentary puts Six Nations in perspective". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "It is the latest lesson from the School of Hard Knocks, the unique collision of rugby union, fly-on-the-wall television documentary and disadvantaged young adults which should be compulsory viewing in all middle-class households when its seventh series starts on Sky in September. ... With any luck, this year's shivering Birmingham intake – the weather has been grim since filming started – will also find it a springboard to a better place and, ideally, full-time work."

    3. Godwin, Hugh (2010-03-21). "Ruck and Maul: Greenwood is punished by his own pupils at 'School of Hard Knocks'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "Ever fancied giving a rugby pundit a good pasting? Sky Sports' 'School of Hard Knocks' will do it for you, in episode four of the series to be aired next Tuesday night. Will Greenwood and Scott Quinnell are attempting to turn a bunch of East London ex-criminals and ne'er-do-wells into a rugby team, and the latest episode sees one player, known as Lucky, pile into Greenwood during a tackle session. A suitably gravelly voiceover comes from Steve "Phil Mitchell" McFadden of 'Eastenders' - surprising really, when Ross Kemp is the real-life rugby fan among the fictional brothers. Anyway, with two more episodes to come even the relentlessly positive Greenwood, whose dad Dick was one of England's greatest coaching innovators, is wondering if this motley crew are worth all the aggro."

    4. Harris, Tom (2021-10-10). "School of Hard Knocks project in Cornwall from Sport Cornwall". The Falmouth Packet. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "SOHK is widely recognised as a television programme that was presented by former British Lions rugby players Will Greenwood and Scott Quinnell. Stories that evolved from the progreamme and the benefits to those participating were obvious, so much so that the SOHK is now very much recognised as an important national charity, delivering life-changing programmes across the UK for both children and adults."

    5. Silk, Huw (2015-08-12). "How 24 troubled Welsh men turned their lives around – with the help of two rugby legends". WalesOnline. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "The 24 unemployed men from South Wales featured in a new Sky series premiering this weekend have been praised for the progress they made during the televised social inclusion scheme. The latest series of School of Hard Knocks begins this Saturday on Sky Sports and on Sunday on Sky 1, having been filmed earlier this year. It features the men from Cardiff, Bargoed, Tonypandy and Aberdare who are taken on an intensive training regime by Wales legend Scott Quinnell, English World Cup winner Will Greenwood and motivational psychologist Paul Boross.  The series culminates with a jobs fair for the participants."

    6. Farrell, Sean (2013-10-27). "Sky's School of Hard Knocks to size up Ireland for next series". The42.ie. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.

      The article notes: "SKY SPORTS’ COMMUNITY-based rugby project School of Hard Knocks could be coming to these shores in the coming months. ... The show’s sixth series (which ended last month) brought the Sky cameras to Glasgow, but producer Luke Rosier told TheScore.ie that Limerick and Belfast were also viable candidates at the last selection stage."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of reality legal programming

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral(changed vote) I did too give a reason when I removed your prod. [46] I clearly said (valid list article). There was no "against-consensus move", that not making any sense at all. There was no discussion for it, nor needed one, it just a common sense thing. This is a list article, so "list of" should be in the name. Valid navigational list, it linking to Wikipedia articles logically grouped together. Reality television is well known, the article defines its purpose as listing those with "reality-based subjects having to do with law, such as police, crime, litigation". So clear inclusion criteria. Dream Focus 01:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it valid if "legal reality programming" is not a thing that exists? Lists still need to be sourced, and about a topic that actually exists. You could easily make a verifiable list of "list of TV shows whose titles begin with the letter W", "list of TV shows whose first episode aired on a Thursday", or "list of sitcoms that still use a laugh track in 2022", but that's not an encyclopedic topic. By whose standards is any given show about litigation or crime and a reality series? Both halves of that statement would need to be verified, and sources would need to prove that this is a noteworthy intersection of genres. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is in the categories of category:Legal television series and category:Reality television. Both of these things exist, the page is dedicated to listing things in both of these categories. Can rename it to List of reality television programs involving the law.
    Reality_television#Court_shows has a link to this page. Category:Reality television series by genre has Category:Court_shows in it. A page with just the many court shows in it would be a valid one. Just having similar themed things all in one list makes sense though. Whoops, I just noticed List of court shows already exist.
    So does List of reality television programs. It seems everything is already listed elsewhere so perhaps this article is not needed. Dream Focus 17:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is on a made-up topic, which only exists because the creator of the article says it exists. Isn't that a criteria for speedy deletion? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SYNTH WP:OR stub list that would be a category if it was an actual topic anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Hurl!

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

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Stanley, Alessandra (2008-07-17). "Gross Out and Knockoff, but Hardly Any Sendup". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "“Hurl!,” an extreme eating contest on the cable channel G4, has a certain elegance, an economy of action and intent that is too often lacking in contemporary ballet or fine dining. Contestants, almost all male, eat as much as they can in one sitting, then exert themselves in a strenuous physical activity. He who eats the most and vomits the least wins $1,000."

    2. Farhi, Paul (2008-07-16). "'Hurl!': Gag Reflux; G4's Game Show Earns Two Fingers Down the Throat". The Washington Post. ProQuest 410202661.

      The article notes:

      It's "Hurl!," a new TV game show that oozes under the lowest bar ever set by reality television. It also emerges as the inglorious new standard-setter in the how-low-can-they-go derby. Oh, yes, this is award-worthy retch-edness.

      "Hurl!," which debuted last night on the G4 cable channel, is the first half-hour series that combines physical rigor with eating disorders and gastric distress. Contestants consume massive quantities of sure-to-bloat foods -- chicken pot pie, franks 'n' beans, New England clam chowder -- then engage in such activities as riding an amusement park Tilt-A-Whirl. The "winner" is the contestant who doesn't lose his lunch. Or to be technical about it, who holds out the longest before he releases the hounds. Call it a pas de spew.

      "Hurl!," in other words, is for people who found "Fear Factor" much too nuanced and intellectually complex.

    3. Roberds, Michael (2008-07-18). "G4 'wins' with disgusting game show called Hurl!". Surrey Now-Leader. p. 36. ProQuest 359014283.

      The article notes: "If they made a movie in 1988 that was a satire on life in 2008, they would have television shows that would've looked outrageous by their standards. They might even have a game show, in which the object was to be the last to vomit. Well, I have seen the future and it is Hurl!  G4, a cable channel devoted mostly to video game news, has come up with this bizarre concoction. In Hurl!, contestants are involved in eating contests (hot dogs, fish sticks, etc.) with those who can keep the most down continuing on to the next level. In this part, they are subjected to different activities (belly flops, mechanical bulls) designed to shake things up. ...  Congratulations, G4, you've come up with the most disgusting show of the year. I hope."

    4. "News of the Weird for August 24, 2008". Andrews McMeel Syndication. 2008-08-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Though it has been on national cable TV since mid-July, ratings have not been spectacular for the G4 channel's show, "Hurl!" leaving many Americans unaware of precisely how far standards of taste have fallen. "Hurl!" contestants are forced to gorge themselves, then are purposely, rapidly, twirted and shaken on carnival-type rides, with the last player to retain his stomach contents declared the winner. Wrote a Washington Post reviewer, it's "for people who found 'Fear Factor' much too nuanced.""

    5. Darling, Cary (2008-07-13). "Japanese Game Shows Exploding Across the Airwaves in U.S." The Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "This show certainly taps into the extreme spirit of Japanese TV. Because the only thing harder than taking part in this eating contest is watching it. Not only do competitors have to choke down mountains of mac 'n' cheese and pumpkin pie in record time, they are forced to compete in some belly-churning physical activity until one or more of them, you know, hurls. The last one standing, however woozily, who hasn't given up his lunch gets $1,000 and the Iron Stomach Award. "Hurl!" is helped by its cheeky sense of humor: ..."

    6. Weiss, Joanna (2008-07-14). "'Hurl' serves up gross-out reality". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: ""Hurl!" doesn't take itself the least bit seriously and doesn't suggest that anyone ought to watch unless absolutely willing. It's less hazardous than "Jackass" and not much more disgusting than "Fear Factor," and if it finds a doofus audience, so be it."

    7. Glazer, Teressa Hamrick (2008-05-29). "Glazer: The TV show you dont want to watch at dinner". The Gainesville Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Just when I think modern day culture has finally bottomed out and can sink no further, along comes the likes of Neal Tiles who digs a hole so the bar can be lowered even more. It makes me want to hurl."

    8. Gillette, Amelie (2008-06-20). "This Week In Terrifying Hybrids". The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Jackass + Competitive Eating - Bam Margera + G4's beautiful vision of a vomit spirograph = g4's Hurl!"

    9. Bell, Josh (2008-07-24). "Falling Down. A new crop of game shows take on-air debasement to a new low". Las Vegas Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "As dumb as Wipeout is, it’s genius compared to Hurl! (G4, Sundays, 7 p.m.), a crude, low-budget game show that forces participants to gorge themselves on some sort of rich food and then engage in some potentially vomit-inducing activity, like being rolled around in a giant metal ball."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep: Per the many sources listed above. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am impressed with the sources found and consider them to constitute significant coverage, and so the article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Rebel Eats

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

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Myers, Dan. "Justin Warner on 'Rebel Eats' and What Took So Long to Get His Show on the Air". The Daily Meal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "The end result, a one-time special called Rebel Eats, will be broadcast Saturday, March 30, at 10 p.m., with the potential for it to be turned into a series if it performs well. ... While traveling the South’s back roads in a beat-up car with little cash in his pocket, Warner meets folks who are similar to him: in a word, rebels."

    2. Sagner, Stan (2013-03-24). "Justin Warner, winner of 'Food Network Star,' goes in search of the unusual in his show 'Rebel Eats'". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "The culinary enfant terrible of Bed-Stuy, who brought a fresh, irreverent and season-winning perspective to cooking on last season's "Food Network Star," is at it again, this time with the premiere of his show "Rebel Eats." ... Restless for new ideas and armed with a whopping $300 budget courtesy of Food Network, the Alton Brown protégé sets his sights on America's Deep South in a one-hour TV special meant to get (and give) some fresh inspiration from what he regards as his "sick and twisted" culinary soulmates. Over the course of a grueling 12-day odyssey, Warner encounters eccentricity galore, at one point sampling bacon-infused beer and visiting Memphis' legendary Dyer's Burgers, a restaurant that's been recycling and cooking with the same batch of mythical grease for over a century. Delicious."

    3. Schelle, Crystal (2013-03-21). "'Rebel' hits the road: Justin Warner's new show premieres Saturday, March 30". The Herald-Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Justin Warner might be "The Next Food Network Star," but he wants his viewers to know he hasn't forgotten his Hagerstown roots. Even the title of his new show, "Rebel Eats," which premieres Saturday, March 30, is a wink to the mascot of his alma mater, South Hagerstown High School. ... Armed with $300 and driving his jalopy, he'll be out meeting everyday people and chatting about what they do."

    4. Robbins, Caryn (2013-02-18). "Food Network Star Winner Winner Justin Warner to Host REBEL EATS, 3/30". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

      The article notes: "Food Network Star season eight winner Justin Warner hits the road in search of unique culinary rule-breakers in the one-hour special REBEL EATS, airing Saturday, March 30th at 10pm ET/PT on Food Network. Armed with $300 in his pocket, a beat up car and a passion for unconventional food and eccentric people, Justin travels the back roads of the South to try everything from moonshine and bacon beer to BBQ in a jar and jelly fish pasta. Along the way, Justin meets the cooks and proprietors who, like him, march to their own beat through the world of food."

    5. Trenda, Hilary (2013-04-03). "'Rebel Eats' on Food Network pays a visit to 10 Park Lanes". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Charlotte's 10 Park Lanes was featured on the March 30 Food Network special "Rebel Eats," hosted by Season Eight Food Network Star winner Justin Warner. Warner tried the Montford establishment's Mason jar signature stacks, which layer complementary ingredients such as barbecue, beans and mac and cheese in the canning jars. Warner also stuck around to bowl with the Charlotte Roller Girls."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep Some of the sources found don't seem notable, but together, I think they just push it past the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Totally Outrageous Behavior

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

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

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

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

Cassandra Fernando

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

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

Comment Similar to Linda White (politician), this candidate is very likely to be elected on 21 May 2022. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for a few weeks, delete if she loses (which is unlikely). Frickeg (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. If she gets elected in the coming election, presumably she would pass WP:NPOL and then she might have enough references to pass WP:GNG. Chanaka L (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expect I'll be a minority here, nevertheless .... Australia's federal election is less than three weeks away, for which this person is a candidate and who in all likelihood will win (45 years since a tory won the seat). On election, presumed notability will be accorded. Against that, deleting the article this close to the election creates attention in and of itself. If this was a minor party candidate, I would be less concerned and agree with strict application of the GNG ... but I think an 18-day suspension here is not unreasonable. Does the risk of drawing attention by deletion/draftifying outweigh the zero impact to this encyclopedia of waiting 18 days? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't be keeping an article in mainspace on the expectation that the subject might be notable in the future. I don't really think we run the risk of drawing any media attention if we draftify this article. – numbermaniac 08:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify To enforce the consensus that Wikipedia should not be used as free campaign advertising for otherwise non-notable individuals. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...except we're discussing someone with a 99.9% likelihood of being elected to a national parliament. I actually think in a case like this there's not a factual basis to claim that the presence of the article acts as free campaign advertising ... given our policies around PROMO there's more than adequate means to deal with those problems. The mere existence of the article itself cannot be said to assist the campaign as any Google search shows her appearance in local media. Whereas removing the article creates news in itself - sort of Wikipedia Schrödinger's cat phenomenon. Ultimately, we're engaged in a round about process, that's only going to get us back to the article in 18 days. How is that making the encyclopedia better? Again, there's no precedent being set here, this is just applying some commonsense to a very specific circumstance. But, as I said above, I expect I'll be in the minority. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify seems like a good WP:ATD in this case (as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda White (politician)). -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. They're likely to win, but we should only have an article about them after they have won, not in anticipation of their victory. – numbermaniac 08:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments to draftify and re-create in a couple weeks are frankly ridiculous and are depriving readers of information for no purpose. Creating articles for safe seats is the standard for U.S. politics articles as nomination is tantamount to election. Numerous articles on 2022 election candidates have already been created - Allegra Spender, Monique Ryan - who are much less likely to be elected, not sure why this is being singled out. ITBF (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to support that claim regarding American politicians? As someone who monitors AfD I don't agree with your conclusions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trent Kelly was created before being elected to a seemingly safe Republican district in Mississippi. There's even a 2015 talk page discussion mirroring similar issues as here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Donald Payne Jr created prior to winning safe Democrat district in New Jersey. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After not asserting it once in 15 years, twice in two minutes is presumably acceptable, I guess I have a few remaining in the pantry ... WP:IAR+WP:COMMONSENSE = Keep. regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Linda White (politician)

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

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

Comment Linda White is virtually guaranteed to win election to the Senate, so at worst this article is published prematurely. This is a proportional representation election and she is the first candidate on her party's list, which is a major party. The candidate will unequivocally meet NPOL unless she dies, and even then may still meet notability as an elected deceased person. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I agree with the nominator that the subject probably doesn't meet notability. But I came here to basically say the same thing that the person above has said: even taking WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTYET into account, this person will almost certainly become notable in only 3 weeks' time, so it feels like a bad idea to delete it now, only to resurrect it in 3 weeks' time. But obviously undeleting articles is easy, so we can still delete it now I suppose. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Basically in agreement with the above. She's not notable now, we shouldn't encourage articles to be created prematurely like this, but at the same time this is a bit of a waste of time given just how guaranteed her election is. Draftify for a few weeks, I guess. Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify seems like a good WP:ATD in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More or less cutting and pasting my comment as at Cassandra Fernando .... Australia's federal election is less than three weeks away, for which this person is a candidate and barring death and/or an extinction-level event will be elected. On election, presumed notability will be accorded. Against that, deleting the article this close to the election creates attention in and of itself. If this was a minor party candidate, I would be less concerned and agree with strict application of the GNG ... but I think an 18-day suspension here is not unreasonable. Does the risk of drawing attention by deletion/draftifying outweigh the zero impact to this encyclopedia of waiting 18 days? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it zero impact? Don't you think readers would like to read about a future senator? ITBF (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ITBF Sorry, my phrasing was not very clear! I was trying to say there's zero impact on the encyclopedia keeping the article, whereas there's actually a risk in deleting it. We agree. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... close and draftify now per WP:SNOW ? Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments to draftify and re-create in a couple weeks are frankly ridiculous and are depriving readers of information for no purpose. Creating articles for safe seats is the standard for U.S. politics articles as nomination is tantamount to election. Numerous articles on 2022 election candidates have already been created - Allegra Spender, Monique Ryan - who are much less likely to be elected, not sure why this is being singled out. ITBF (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ITBF: Spender and Ryan are notable as candidates, while Linda White and Cassandra Fernando aren't notable as candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in 15+ years, going with my first WP:IAR. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify To enforce the consensus that Wikipedia should not be used as free campaign advertising for otherwise non-notable individuals. Note:my opinion was edited, replaced and removed in this edit by ITBF AusLondonder (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not giving anyone "free campaign advertising" and you going around to multiple articles implying I have a political bias is uncalled for. ITBF (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ITBF: Are you serious? You removed my comments on purpose? AusLondonder (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AusLondonder Looking at the edit history, it appears to me as a genuine mistake, not unreasonable to AGF here. @ITBF Perhaps be a little more careful in how you craft your replies being conscious to preserve previous contribution and FWIW I didn't read AUsLondoner's comments as accusing you of political bias, again, AGF here. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 Australian federal election as an interim place for the subject. There is not a consensus for creating articles for candidates in safe seats in the US (violates WP:Crystal) - instead a redirect is a usual and appropriate outcome. --Enos733 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Crystal allows for the creation of articles where the issue at hand is notable and almost certain to happen. I've not looked particularly thoroughly, but quickly found two US House members whose articles were created prior to their election in safe districts: Donald Payne Jr and Trent Kelly. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly was redirected until the election (see talk page). Also not everything gets sent to Afd. - Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The history shows in one the redirect was contested. In the other it stayed. I'm only highlighting that "There is not a consensus for creating articles for candidates in safe seats in the US" does not appear to be correct. We don't have a consensus for anything on this matter, rather lots of different practices...which is perfectly Wikipedia of us. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It is the principle - she is not notable yet. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Less Unless: How long can we expect this discussion continue to be open for? The subject will be elected to a national legislature in ten days. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As there's no consensus on the notability so the article has been relisted for 7 more days. Less Unless (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that she's certain to be elected on the 21st and this now won't be closed before at the latest the 18th, this is becoming particularly silly levels of moot. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Death of Merit

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

References

  1. ^
  • Keep Definitely notable. There is plenty of discussion around the work in reliable sources in an independent way. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_1&oldid=1085645224"