Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rusf10 (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 27 April 2023 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crow Village Sam.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 26 April 28 >

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. Star Mississippi 13:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crow Village Sam

Crow Village Sam (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:NPERSON notability guideline. Nice little story, but this guy lived in a tiny town and didn't really do anything notable and its largely unsourced. Rusf10 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Crow Village, Alaska I found the one source that is listed in the article and the guy has an interesting life but he doesn't pass WP:GNG. He does give a lot of history of the area and it is recorded in the source, not enough for an article but enough to move some of the content over to the Crow Village, Alaska article. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska. Rusf10 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I've added more info but being a major ethnographic informant for Yup'ik culture and founding a community are both extremely notable. Yuchitown (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Strong keep. per Yuchi Indigenous girl (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per changes by Yuchitown.  oncamera  (talk page) 02:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the article has been expanded, and more relevant content was recently added by Yuchitown. Seems decent enough for keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 23:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal (band)

Corporal (band) (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:BAND --FMSky (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails GNG, and seems to have a promotional angle besides. Also, one of the sources is the band's own website, the only other one being insufficient to establish notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: fails WP:BAND, and also SIGCOV, however, (1) the prominence of one of its members, and (2) contemporaneous coverage from both BrooklynVegan, and AV Club Chicago leads me to the conclusion that this band was/is notable enough at a local level to be GNG notable Jack4576 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep vote mentions the lack of SIGCOV, the point about prominate member is covered under NOTINHERITED. I don't see properly sourced material for a merge, but no objection to a consensus redirect if one emerges.  // Timothy :: talk  00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG and notability is not inherited. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (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 03:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Fitzgerald

Bill Fitzgerald (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 am not seeing anything suggesting encyclopedic notability for this mostly-local news anchor. BD2412 T 03:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not much there, aside from self-generated publicity regarding a departure from a news network and the hosting of a political debate [1], [2], [3], as well as subtle passing mentions in books [4]. No significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Multi7001 (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha Fringe Chase

Tabitha Fringe Chase (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 FOIA request and passing mentions over a baggy pants debate don't seem to establish notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable "activist" with no sourcing found. The FOIA request isn't even linked, could be fake for all we know. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is real: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/spyfiles/georgia_foia.pdf CT55555(talk) 12:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was badly formatted, with most references presented as external links, some of them dead. I've fix most of that, more work is needed. This wasn't an easy !vote as she is mostly known for one thing and policy normally directs us away from biographies about people arrested but not charged. However, that policy stems from privacy concerns. As she has written about her arrest, clearly she doesn't seek privacy, in fact she is trying to draw attention to her arrest. Therefore, privacy concerns aside, is she notable enough? She is noted for two things, the FBI arrest and then protesting an underwear bar, so WP:BLP1E doesn't discount this as she is not low profile at all, and there are two events, even if one is minor. CT55555(talk) 13:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your cleanup work, but they still have to meet GNG. If you look at the attention she received for the second, the sources I saw literally just mention her name and that she was holding a sign, not SIGCOV. I also don't think the IWW sources are reliable. There's no evidence of fact checking or any editorial process-- it just seems like a blog to me. That leaves us with the Atlanta Progressive News, a reasonable source. I can't see one reliable source with significant coverage establishing notability, especially since there seem to have been absolutely no mentions of Chase that don't occur in 2005 or 2007. For notability to be established, I'd expect some coverage beyond the immediate aftermath of those two events. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that is fair. We could say she passes WP:BASIC but that would rely on IWW being a reliable source...I'm reconsidering.... CT55555(talk) 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: To say she passes WP:BASIC, we'd need to have at least one solid, reliable source with significant coverage. I just looked more carefully at https://archive.iww.org/node/1832/ which seems to share content published elsewhere, in this case from Creative Loafing, which seems not like a reliable source based on info I saw here: https://creativeloafing.com/about-us I therefore am about to withdraw my !keep vote. I'm probably a weak delete at this point, but prefer to consider for a bit before updating my !vote, I'm keen to see what others say. CT55555(talk) 16:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's been nothing since 2007, so no sustained coverage. We've settled the FOIA issue I mentioned in my first comment, but I'm still not seeing notability even with the points raised in the discussion above. Same !vote as above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. There's no substantive "there" there, for this one. None of her varied professions make her notable. Nor does being questioned by the FBI for her plans to visit Iraq during the Iraq War. That would seem routine considering the chosen destination and the time period. The sourcing for that is an article written by Tabitha Chase herself. And so what if her file was obtained by the ACLU? Being one among other protestors regarding the proposed Atlanta City's regulations banning the display of underwear in public is meaningless. It just means she showed up to protest with a group of others. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Mari Emmanuel

Mar Mari Emmanuel (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)

On behalf of His Grace, Mar Mari Emmanuel (HGMM), we humbly request the deletion of this Wikipedia Page (Mar Mari Emmanuel) & related Talk Page page for multiple reasons, with all love and respect (above and beyond the reasons already listed in the Talk page), which also potentially & directly correlate to Wikipedia's community guidelines; i.e., HGMM is not deemed to be a notable figure when looking at credible sources, and the sources that have been noted as credible (mainstream news sites, etc.) from the simple reason that they only provide brief bursts of news coverage at a specific time in the past. Hence, per Wikipedia guidelines, this may not sufficiently demonstrate Notability WP:Notability. Additionally, we would also like to note that no evidence of permission WP:F11 was given for publication, even though HGMM is not deemed as an organisation himself, he is clearly associated both in the Wikipedia article and online through multiple sources (regardless of source notability) with the non-profit charitable church organisation that he both directly belongs to and oversees, Christ The Good Shepherd Church. Finally, also as a personal request which we believe is as important as the aforementioned and as clearly stated in the Talk section, HGMM is recognised as a clergyman and true servant of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, by his community and others who know him personally, hence, out of obedience and respect to his wishes for this page to be deleted WP:U1, we would also like to ask your help with kindly abiding by this request, please. GraceHanna53 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can we believe that you are acting on behalf of Mar Mari Emmanuel. It is possible for anyone in the world to come and say that they are acting on behalf of someone. The criterias you mentioned for speedy deletion do not belong to mainspace. WP:F11 is for files and WP:U1 is for userpages. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thilsebatti, this is an authentic request from the original source, directly from His Grace. As mentioned in one of my previous comments on his talk page, "...for any proof or legitimacy that this request has come directly from him, I ask you please contact the Secretary of our Bishop's church, Christ The Good Shepherd Church, with email that can be found on our Church website, www.cgsc.org.au.".
Unfortunately, when I tried to post the email itself in a prior comment, it was automatically omitted by Wikipedia. I can try and dictate it here without the algorithm potentially omitting it again, i.e., "admin, at, cgsc, dot, org, dot. au". I sincerely hope that helps. GraceHanna53 (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we accept Catholic bishops as notable (as far as I know), I'm not sure why this type of bishop would be any different. I can't find sources, but I'll take a longer look. Oaktree b (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the past we’ve debated obscure bishops about whom almost nothing is known, and we’ve kept them. We know quite a lot about this person, and indeed the article demonstrates that they are not just a private person at all. Obedience and respect are not Wikipecia policies. Mccapra (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Iraq, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Smashes WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could those voting !keep please help me see how the subject meets the GNG? I don't immediately see that a bishop who apparently overseas a single congregation of a splinter church is notable. The references on the page are fairly weak in terms of notability IMO and I'm not seeing much else. JMWt (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I mention to the nominator that WP:F11 applies to the deletion of files such as photographs. There is one photograph in this article which was apparently created by User:Ghareebota as their own work, and Ghareebota themself indicates that they have given permission for use of the photo on Wikipedia. (We are concerned with permission by the photographer, not permission by the subject of the picture.) WP:U1 applies only to the deletion of pages in the User: space of Wikipedia (for example, User:Metropolitan90 is my userpage) and has nothing to do with deleting regular articles such as the article about Mar Mari Emmanuel that we are talking about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Delete -- If the subject was a diocesan bishop of a major denomination, we would certainly keep this, but he appears to be a schismatic bishop with a single church of his own but some ministry to a few other schismatic church. I doubt that is enough to make him notable. Is this sufficiently referenced for a BLP article? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the impression that many people are giving opinions based on the obviously unsatisfactory nomination rather than on the available sources. We have found only one reliable source which does no more than confirm that the subject was a suffragan bishop (i.e. an assistant bishop) in the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East in less than a single sentence. It is claimed that he is now a proper bishop, but in a schism of a schism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I hate to have to abide by a request for deletion that violates Wikipedia's processes, but I fail to see how the article meets WP:GNG. None of the sources are reliable, with tweets, official websites and news stories not about the subject present, and the books (although I don't have access to them) seem like they would fall short of WP:SIGCOV. If any of the people who voted keep could explain how the article meets WP:GNG and provide reliable sources, I am more than happy to change my vote. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are some published items from conventional news organizations about Mar Mari Emmanuel ([5]) or referring to him ([6], [7]) and at least one book reference available on-line through Google Books ([8]), so he seems to meet the criteria for notability. His past role in the Assyrian church is also probably enough to make him notable. Bistropha (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From my understanding a one liner name mention in a book and a brief mainstream media coverage do not suffice the General notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Happy to be corrected, with all humility and respect. GraceHanna53 (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mail source is considered unreliable under WP:RSP, so I don't think that counts to notability. The SBS and ABC sources aren't about the subject although do mention him, and the book is a single line in a list of people. I still don't think this article is notable, despite the dubious circumstances in which the article was nominated for deletion. And to be clear @GraceHanna53:, I don't support your church or your dangerous and hateful views. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, @JML1148, and we are not asking for your support here whilst also not being judgmental, at the same time. Regarding nomination, you will need to kindly excuse our novice & immature approach as this is our very first time attempting to perform this type of action. GraceHanna53 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As others have noted, I hate to agree to delete when the request is an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy, however I cannot find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is clearly not enough SIGCOV for the article to pass GNG; he mainly just seems to be notable for a video saying some stupid stuff, which is not enough for an article. I don't like having to agree to delete when the nomination is so against policy, but it is what it is. AryKun (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). Closer should take the appropriate action regarding nom's group account.  // Timothy :: talk  10:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough in reliable sources to meet GNG/BIO. Rupples (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2023 (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 01:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Vadgama

Disha Vadgama (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)

Only The Times of India source , No reliable sources found. Fails WP:BIO. AShiv1212 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Mentions in the Free Press Journal and the Telegraph India, unsure how RS they are, seem iffy. I can't find any further sources to support keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed WP:NBIO WP:GNG & free press journal is not a reliable source. Hukumat Namanzoor (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another Indian fashion/beauty person with no evidence they have done anything worth noting. I don't think we can even consider the "Times of India" either per WP:TOI and Paid news in India. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:34, 30 April 2023 (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. A potential merger discussion can continue on the Talk if needed. I don't see a 4th relist bringing any consensus here when opinions are split on whether the sourcing is significant Star Mississippi 13:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The XY Factor

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

Appears to not be notable, as nothing was found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022. Previously deleted in a PROD in 2022, but REFUNDed shortly afterward. No improvements made to establish notability since then. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Orphaned article. A quick Google suggests that this is not notable and that there are other things that might even have a better claim to this article title (not necessarily a good claim, just a better one). --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I've added these sources to the article:
    1. Kalina, Paul (2004-03-04). "Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
    2. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-04-08). "Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
    3. Stewart, Susan (2002-03-16). "The XY Factor". Vol. 50, no. 11. TV Guide. p. 49. ProQuest 236448459.
    4. Yarborough, Trin (2005). Surviving Twice: Amerasian Children of the Vietnam War. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. ISBN 1-57488-864-1. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Google Books.
    5. "TV Highlights". Philadelphia Daily News. 2001-09-07. p. 70. ProQuest 1894860965.
    6. Washburn, Mark (2001-09-08). "Mark Washburn Recommends". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
    7. Washburn, Mark (2002-01-26). "Mark Washburn Recommends". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The XY Factor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this as significant coverage. It is reasonable for use as verification, and it does move us a little closer to demonstrating notability, but I don't think it gets us over the line. We have some one paragraph descriptions and extremely cursory reviews in TV listings, which I see as routine coverage. The book gives it a single passing mention. Admitedly, I don't have access to all the sources listed above but, unless the ones I can't see are very substantially better than the ones I can, I still feel that is only good enough to support a mention somewhere else and not a stand alone article. DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail" so are sufficient to allow The XY Factor to meet the notability guideline. I was able to significantly expand the article with these sources. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wasn't able to find any significant coverage of this series. I don't believe that any of the sources listed by Cunard (including the ProQuest sources, which I have access to) provide significant coverage; none of them are more than a paragraph long, and most of them are simple episode summaries with very little critical commentary. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewart 2003 provides 133 words of coverage about the subject and Bellman 2004 provides 124 words of coverage about the subject. This meets the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Bellman 2004 includes this sentence of critical commentary: "This fascinating, almost pulp, instalment of the US documentary series is frank and revealing, although there's little attempt to examine the lot of the prostitutes." Cunard (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I asked for a refund, as I felt that at a minimum it's a redirect to the network. Now I see how that article has been improved and referenced, I believe it should be kept! Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2023 (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 01:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Cossack

Roger Cossack (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 former TV legal analyst fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2023 (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 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bajo el alma

Bajo el alma (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 appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022.

PROD removed with "won award", but that is not mentioned in the article, no link to that information was added to the article, and a search did not provide any information as to what the award is. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I’ve added some content and refs but still not sure it passes. It’s mostly churnalism and PR rather than in depth coverage. The fact that it was the channel’s first production and that it won the award for worst new Telenovela May help a bit. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2023 (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 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture of the Deep (novel)

Rapture of the Deep (novel) (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 book. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    1. McGarrigle, Dale (2009-09-27). "'Rapture of the Deep' filled with adventure". Bangor Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

      The review notes: "“Rapture of the Deep” is filled with figures from Jacky’s past, some aiding her, others serving as obstacles in her path. In this latest, adventure-packed installment, Jacky continues to mature and become more respectable, but proves she’s still the poor London street urchin readers discovered in the first book of the series. Here’s hoping she never grows up entirely."

    2. Oravec, Kristen (December 2009). "Rapture of the Deep: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of Jacky Faber, Soldier, Sailor, Mermaid, Spy". School Library Journal. Vol. 55, no. 12. ISSN 0362-8930. EBSCOhost 45722442.

      The review notes: "She taunts and teases every man she meets and seems not to care about running around naked or half-naked in front of them. There is much sexual innuendo and an attempted rape scene. The secondary characters seem to be little more than cardboard cutouts, especially the pirates. Fans of the series will eat this title up, but for a better-drawn heroine in a historical adventure, try Jennifer Holm's excellent "Boston Jane" series (HarperCollins)."

    3. Connie, Rockman (2010-10-15). "Rapture of the Deep: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of Jacky Faber, Soldier, Sailor, Mermaid, Spy. By L. A. Meyer. Read by Katherine Kellgren". Booklist. Vol. 107, no. 4. p. 68. ISSN 0006-7385. EBSCOhost 55061769.

      The review notes: "If there were an Olympic gold medal for verbal gym- nastics, Kellgren would certainly be a contender. In her reading of this seventh title in the Bloody Jack series (three previous audios are Odyssey Award honor titles, beginning with Bloody Jack: Being an Account of the Curious Adventures of Mary “Jacky” Faber, Ship’s Boy in 2008), Kellgren expertly juggles Jacky’s Cockney accent, the proper upper-class British tones of Higgins and fiancé Jamie, various speech patterns of Spanish and Caribbean officers and merchants, and the softly cadenced southern tones of Jemima, a cook Jacky buys at a Charleston slave market and promptly sets free."

    4. Phelan, Carolyn (2009-09-01). "Rapture of the Deep: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of Jacky Faber, Soldier, Sailor, Mermaid, Spy". Booklist. Vol. 106, no. 1. p. 86. ISSN 0006-7385. EBSCOhost 44153405.

      The review notes: "Meyer weaves details of nineteenth-century history, lore, and ballads into a fast-paced and often amusing swashbuckler. Fans of the Bloody Jack Adventure series will relish the latest escapades of this decidedly unconventional heroine."

    5. Storms, Aarene (2010-03-09). "Book Review - Rapture of the Deep by L.A. Meyer". Shoreline Area News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

      According to this pageInternet Archive, Shoreline Area News has editorial oversight. The review notes: "Action, adventure, brawling, singing, dancing, swimming and shooting.  Bloody Jack fans, rejoice! This series is recommended for readers--and listeners-ages 8 to adult. The story contains some minor cussing (in English and Spanish), and some bloodshed (including post-battle medical scenes) and some very tactful sexual references, none of which should alarm any but the most fainthearted of readers."

    6. Additional reviews from this Amazon page:
      1. "The author has done his homework, weaving many painless history lessons into the book. With its strong female character, fast pace, and fine writing, this will be a book difficult for the young adult reader to put down and one that will leave the reader craving the next title." —Children's Journal
      2. "Fans who have read the previous titles in the series will be treated to a fresh escapade and familiar characters but the story can stand alone for new readers. This will appeal to anyone who enjoys historical fiction, strong female heroines, adventure, and pirates." —VOYA
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rapture of the Deep to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem fine. The Bangor News Journal isn't the NYT, but it's a review, the rest are fine when put together to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2023 (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 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Koop

Jordan Koop (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 sound engineer. Gsearch is straight to social media links, no mentions in RS, no awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Almost all of the cited sources are just trivial mentions, YouTube video, and promotional content. The last cited article almost reads like an RS, if not for the link to the subject's fundraiser at the very bottom. Found no significant coverge to satisfy WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eatza Pizza

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet GNG. Gnews yields very little despite this being an US company. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Villarreal, Phil (2002-07-12). "Diners buffeted by pizza at Eatza Pizza locations". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The restaurant review notes: "Granted, the Eatza Pizza fare isn't the tastiest. You won't need to be pulled, kicking and screaming, out of the restaurant when it closes. The pizza is a bit greasy and somewhat cardboard-crusted. The quick-working staff keeps up to 12 pizzas on the shelf for people to pick from. The standard fare includes pepperoni and veggie varieties. ... The salad bar is serviceable but spartan. Lettuce, bell peppers, celery, tomatoes, mushrooms, onions, cucumber and croutons are included, as well as a choice of four dressings. But come on — you're not coming to Eatza Pizza for the salad."

    2. Tanner-Brown, Stephanie (2002-07-25). "Eatza Pizza offers heaps of treats for very cheap". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The restaurant review notes: "I took my family to the pizza buffet called Eatza Pizza. There are three locations, in Orem, West Jordan and Ogden — all cleverly situated in neighborhoods thick with large families. ... I found that the best pies were the popular ones, mostly because the slower movers had lost their crispy, steamy edge and had gone soggy. The crust at Eatza is just too doughy to hold up over time. ... I wasn't crazy about Eatza's red sauce. It tastes very plain. It seems to be what goes into the baked ziti as well. I also wasn't crazy about the bread sticks. They tasted as if they'd been double rolled in garlic salt. Eatza Pizza has a lot of things going for it, despite some mediocre selections."

    3. Domeier, Robin Hall (2007-03-07). "Out to Lunch - Eatza Pizza, but Don't Miss the Chicken". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The restaurant review notes: "Eatza Pizza offers 20 varieties of pizza. If you don't see what you want, the staff takes requests. Among my favorites: simple pepperoni, sausage, and supreme (green pepper, onion and sausage). The salad bar was the weakest offering. There just wasn't much to it. Dessert includes cinnamon rolls that had an off-putting salty taste. Cherry pizza, with a sheer layer of cherry pie filling and ample drizzling of white icing, was better."

    4. Radigan, Mary (2005-01-14). "Buffet offers bounty of pizza - Eatza Pizza serves up food, fun at family prices". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The article notes: "This is the first Eatza Pizza in Michigan and one of at least three scheduled to open this year. Other locations include Lansing and Southfield. The three Michigan sites are owned and operated by Tim Pugh, a Lansing resident and former partner in Damon's Restaurants, as well as former chief operating officer for Big Buck Brewery & Steakhouse. The corporate Eatza Pizza is a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based franchise, with 58 restaurants in seven states. Eatza Pizza focuses on pizza dough prepared daily and fresh ingredients. Varieties range from the standard pepperoni and cheese, to chicken alfredo and vegetarian. Two types of pasta, three pasta sauces and a salad bar are included."

    5. Kershner, Jim (2004-08-28). "Who gives a hoot what editors think?". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The restaurant review notes: "So I started in on my pizza. The most amazing thing about Eatza Pizza is the variety. Some of those 12 pizzas were your routine varieties, like pepperoni. But there was also a barbecue chicken pizza, a taco pizza and even a Spinach Alfredo pizza with white sauce. ... Now, as for quality, it was just fine. Please understand, the preceding sentence was written in my capacity as thrifty food consumer, not as professional restaurant reviewer. These aren’t gourmet pizzas. No one will ever mistake Eatza Pizza for Bennidito’s. These are cheap pizzas sitting under heat lamps. However, as the sign overhead states, they use 100 percent real cheese, they slice their own veggies, prepare their own dough and "blend" their sauce there every day. If I were to use one phrase to describe the pizza it would be: "Beats frozen.""

    6. Campanelli, John (2006-11-03). "Kids, pizza and games: They're OK, you're OK". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.

      The restaurant review notes: "But after a visit to Eatza Pizza, there might be a place that kids can love and parents can, um, tolerate. ... The place has a few things going for it: It's clean. It's cheap. The noise isn't at ear-bleeding levels. It's buffet-style. And the all-you-can-eat grub isn't dog food. ... What made Eatza Pizza bearable was the scaled-down game area and the desserts. You can sit at a table in relative peace, sip coffee, snack on a slice of cinnamon pizza and just watch your kids waste their tokens and further shorten their attention spans."

    7. Larson, Lisa (2006-11-24). "Kid-friendly Eatza Pizza won't break the bank". The Spectrum. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The restaurant review notes: "On the up side, the restaurant is clean, spacious, brightly lit and filled with foods few kids will decline. The down side is it's a buffet which often means trading quality for quantity. ... Looking with a child's eyes I'd say this place ranks around three or even three and a half stars. But if you have an adult palate to satiate, the food experience lands around two and a half."

    8. Kirby, Kathy (2007-11-08). "Eatza Pizza treat for pie lovers, fams with kids". The Star Press. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The restaurant review notes: "Founded in 1997, the Eatza Pizza franchise has about a dozen locations nationwide. This Muncie restaurant is the first one in Indiana. ... Also very flavorful, with a good amount of toppings and cheese. I liked the pizza sauce on these slices-tangy with a tomato taste—and the crust, which is thick on the edges, but thin in the middle."

    9. Navarro, Bruno J.; Ortiz, Peter (2000-03-25). "Eatza Pizza has bargain prices, tasty buffet". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The restaurant review notes: "BRUNO: I was far too hungry that afternoon to order anything fancy, so I opted for a couple slices of plain pizza. On the side, I heaped a big pile of salad without dressing. The salad was a pleasant surprise. All the ingredients seemed fresh: The tomatoes were juicy and the lettuce crisp. To wash it all down, I got a Diet Coke. At 99 cents with all the free refills you can chug, this was also a great bargain."

      The restaurant review notes: "BRUNO: The pizza itself was about average, and even better when it's hot out of the oven. Plus, it's an excellent value for a quick lunch or when you're too busy to whip up a recipe out of the latest issue of Martha Stewart Living. In all, I'd give Eatza Pizza three slices. It's a fun, casual spot to spend an hour or so, and it's kid-friendly enough to bring the whole family."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eatza Pizza to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per all above. Please be more careful when nominating articles. There is lots of work ahead of us in the article space and mass AfDs takes up lots of community resources! gidonb (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunard has found many reasons to keep. Meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loree Rodkin

Loree Rodkin (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)

Almost every single source is an WP:INTERVIEW, with just one exception. In addition, sources in the article (and those that I could find online) seem to be hype and not sustained, or they are passing mentions (... which was designed by Loree Rodkin ...) WP refs search returns most recent result as 2014, for example. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed all interviews/promotional pieces, and the Chicago Tribune link doesn't work. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, these are mostly much more profile than Q&A, and there's no indication they're promotional in the sense of not being reliable independent sources ... she seems to be a well-covered public figure (archive of Tribune interview) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 12 May 2023 (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/2023_April_27&oldid=1151935290"