Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 13 April 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Yunis Abdallah[edit]

Aamir Yunis Abdallah (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 WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinifex&Sand, are you aware that the football SNG has been removed per community consensus and WP:NFOOTBALL now points to the general sports guideline which requires significant coverage? There is no presumed notability for football players who compete at a certain level. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia is listed at WP:NOTFPL so this would have failed the old WP:NFOOTBALL anyway... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he played in what was not a fully professional organization. Whether even if he had played in a fully professional organization he would meet inclusion criteria is a seperate issue that we do not have to answer because he did not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even played in professional league, fails WP:GNG.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 06:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Estonian top league, Meistriliiga actually is fully professional, from 2 years ago. [1] . Most of its payers would also meet GNG from the coverage. This player aswell, if you'd search for it. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 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! 23:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utkirbek Kakhorov[edit]

Utkirbek Kakhorov (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 tagged as G11 and indicated to be cross wiki spam (cc @Kagansky:), and while I don't think it's promotional enough to be deleted via that route there's no claim to creative notability. His work does not seem significant enough roles wise to be notable. While I do not read Russian or Uzbek, the sources have RS challenges and do not appear to be in depth enough to meet GNG. Star Mississippi 22:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All information in the article is backed up by reliable sources like news sites, film databases, blogs etc. Morover, recent work of the persona in the article has been discussed widely on the web. The article keeps its notability. I request to double check before deletion. Please address the references section of the article to check the sources. More references have been inserted and the overall quality of the article has been updated. Thank you for your time and effort. This helped the article to be better than before. Film contributor (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay your attention: The author created an article about himself. The article contains practically no independent authoritative sources. One authoritative source is indicated, which provides a discussion about the series, and not about the subject. Article does not correspond to WP:NACTOR. The topic and subject of the article is not encyclopedically significant. None of these sources has detailed coverage of the subject. — Kagansky (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NWRITER or WP:ANYBIO. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources cited in the article, most are not WP:RS and none of the few that might be reliable have significant coverage of Kakhorov. WP:TOOSOON. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 16 April 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! 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Yagin[edit]

Eddie Yagin (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. Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 22:21, 14 April 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! 22:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Saraiva[edit]

Diego Saraiva (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. Could not find any in depth or significant coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 22:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. 11 years and no progress towards that end either. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet either WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Typical reporting of sports results does not constitute significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 19 April 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. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Segub[edit]

Segub (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)

Two figures incidentally mentioned in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible - the father of Jair and the son of Hiel of Bethel. Neither is really discussed in any commentary I'm familiar with. While concordances/Bible dictionaries/etc will include entries here, there's really nothing they can say except repeat the passing mentions and the name meanings. There's probably a list somewhere this can go to, but I don't see any support for a stand-alone article. Hog Farm Talk 21:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider the redirect option mentioned in a comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 14 April 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! 00:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Highton[edit]

Leonie Highton (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 author and journalist. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or any other relevant notability guideline. Cannot find reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:33, 7 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! 21:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we lack the indepdent sources at a level needed to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 15 April 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! 21:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Magrs[edit]

Mark Magrs (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 see significant coverage of this writer and radio producer. Current sources are:

  • Internet Magazine for Voice-overs & Radio Commercial Producers - passing mention, "Mark Magrs has been appointed as new Head of Production at Century Radio".
  • Article in local paper, The Shields Gazette, dead link.
  • Publisher's page for book, dead link.
  • Times Educational Supplement article to which the wiki article says Magrs contributed, dead link.
  • Profile on New Writing North - he won a Northern Promise Award, but I don't think this makes him notable.

I've carried out WP:BEFORE and not found anything to add, though I have updated the New Writing North link. Tacyarg (talk) 20:32, 7 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! 21:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar (franchise)[edit]

Avatar (franchise) (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)

Draftify, too soon for a franchise article as only one film released. See WP:FILMSERIES which recommends at least three films before a film series article created. Seems article will be good in few years but not now Indagate (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel like this is a unique circumstance because three of the sequels have already begun filming (2, 3, and 4), two of the sequels have existing articles (2 and 3), and there is a large Other media section on the franchise page. Not to mention the significant notability and attention received by the first film, which has led to intense public interest in the franchise's development. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with InfiniteNexus; these are special circumstances that would allow us to have this article even if the guidance says it’s too soon. Schwede66 18:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While the nominations argument of WP:FILMSERIES is technically correct, I agree with InfinteNexus' argument in this case. The franchise already consists of multiple other non-film entries (the theatrical production, comics, theme parks, etc.) that are also covered here, so a franchise page would still be appropriate even before the release of the remaining sequel films. Rorshacma (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Talk:Avatar (2009 film) has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because we have multiple standalone articles of films that have been produced and are in post-production. I think it's better to read WP:FILMSERIES as "at least three films that have standalone articles" with the presence of articles meaning that the films are notable (having been released or at least having entered production with sufficient general coverage about that). A good example would be A Quiet Place and A Quiet Place Part II, where there is a sequel film and a spin-off film planned, but we don't actually know if these will happen (especially with the spin-off changing directors), so a film-series article would be premature with two confirmed films. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:38, 16 April 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. A discussion on moving the article can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stacey[edit]

Daniel Stacey (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 - he played 3 games some time ago, no sources say he's notable because of something else Artem.G (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (as nominator) Artem.G (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for all the usual obvious reasons - we are a global encyclopaedia, not an Anglosphere one alone, &c. - but would accept a Redirect to a relevant list (if there is one) as an alternative. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably going to end in delete unless someone can find something out about his wider career. He played for Old Wykehamists against Old Etonians in one of the his three first-class matches, but the earliest proper register of Winchester that I can access starts in the 1830s, so that's no help. He appears to have played a match for Old Etonians as well, so I checked the Eton School List but he doesn't seem to appear in that, so he probably was a Winchester man. There are no notes on any of the scorecards about him, and his final first-class match was in a decidedly lower-quality side and only scrapped into fc status because of Ward's double century - it really has no business as a fc match at all.
All of which is not particularly helpful. I can't find anything obviously notable about him elsewhere straight off the bat, so it may well be that he's not awfully notable - but then chaps who were with MCC and who went to Winchester or similar schools do have a habit of turning up somewhere or other. I just can't find him just now - the chap who was a fellow at Magdalan, Oxford is a century too early.
I'll keep looking, and other might also, so I wouldn't suggest an overly hasty close here.
The nomination itself here worries me slightly however - when he played doesn't matter really. The fact that the matches he played in were a little iffy might matter a little more. The fact that he didn't play for the sorts of teams that generally we'd be looking for to suggest notability matters a little more again. The fact that we don't appear to have much in the way of sourcing and little right not to meet GNG matters much more. It's perhaps a shame that the nomination doesn't say *that*. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said all that ^, there's an obvious redirect target, so Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) (see below) under the usual WP:PRESERVE etc... This will allow anyone to get back the minimal details on the page if required and is a cheap alternative to deletion. @RobinCarmody: in case you want to consider that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) Finding sourcing on this subject may be difficult due to the era the subject played in, however BST tends to be quite good at finding sources on players from this era, and if he is struggling it is likely there's probably not a lot on him. There's a couple of other cricket editors who may well be able to help and do a bit of digging, but if nothing can be found redirect is a suitable alternative to deletion. Keep StickyWicket has found suitable sourcing which I now believe shows enough for a GNG pass. If we can find out which is the correct spelling it may also help find further sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Alumni Oxoniensis, he appears to have had a long and quite notable association in a religious and teaching capacity with the University of Oxford. Should be plenty of room to expand this guy, I will put him on my to-do list (once I've finished some essay writing). Because a player played some games years ago also isn't a valid reason to delete. I've struck the nominators 'delete' vote as the nomination counts as one vote, no need to add another. StickyWicket (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, good job - his name being spelled without the e in AO foxed me for a bit and I wonder how much else there is without it. I'm happy to keep on this basis - the source is here if anyone wants a look - look for the name without the e. Given that there's a memorial in the church at Hornchurch also without the e I'd think that a page move is probably appropriate as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent findings and move to Daniel Stacy if that is the majority spelling. With the large number of bad nominations we have had lately, especially of footballers, I must also take issue with this one because he played 3 games some time ago, no sources say he's notable because of something else is, apart from anything else, incomprehensible. NGS Shakin' All Over 21:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:36, 19 April 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. North America1000 20:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazim ZarSinner[edit]

Nazim ZarSinner (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)

Autobiographical article about a person who fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, WP:AB doesn't completely prohibit creation of autobiographical articles, and all the information provided is properly cited, even links to the books that have been published are given, you can read the books yourself, my poetry has been published on many websites, like urdupoint.com which is independent and I have no control over. I recommend the article should be kept, and if there are any neutrality or POV problems, they should be resolved, deleting the article, after all, is something not proper, I think. Sinner (speak) 21:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of my poems, single or in groups, have also been published on these independent websites none of which have still been cited and used in the article.
  1. https://www.newsbreak.com/channels/t-the-clouds
  2. http://hasmoco.com.my/kong-jaan/poems-about-september.html
  3. http://africajourneys.net/8pfwcr/poems-about-september.html
  4. https://hamariweb.com/poetries/%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%92-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%AA-%DA%A9%D8%A7-%DA%AF%D8%B1%DA%86%DB%81-%DA%A9%DA%86%DA%BE-%D9%86%DB%81%DB%8C%DA%BA-%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%DA%A9-%D8%AF%D9%84-%D9%BE%DA%BE%D8%B1-%D8%A8%DA%BE%DB%8C-pid103428.aspx
  5. https://hamariweb.com/poetries/%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B1%DA%A9-%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D8%B3%DB%92-%D9%BE%DB%81%D9%84%DB%92-%D8%AA%DA%BE%DB%92-pid103404.aspx
Ebook of my 36 English poems can be downloaded from
It proves that my poetry is worth-note, so I'm. Sinner (speak) 23:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article also present at Urdu Wikipedia.Sinner (speak) 19:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article exists on the Urdu Wikipedia because you just created it! Did you think no-one would notice? How does you writing a Wikipedia article (which is a direct translation of this one, with all the same sourcing problems) about yourself on another project demonstrate that you are notable? How does it demonstrate that you pass WP:GNG or any of the criteria of WP:NPOET? How does this represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - It is neither reliable or independent. Quite frankly your attempts at promoting yourself here are becoming disruptive. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of significant coverage of the article subject in secondary reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little more than spam. None of the references here demonstrate that this person is notable. Going through each site in turn:
    1. urdupoint poetry - A site that allows users to submit their own poetry for posting.
    2. poemhunter - A site that allows anyone with an account to upload their own poetry
    3. poetrysoup - Another site that allows users to upload and submit their own poetry
    4. allpoetry - Describes itself as an "online poetry writing group". Again a site that allows users to upload their own poetry.
    5. The three books are compilations of poems written by the article subject.
None of the references here demonstrate any kind of coverage of this person at all, let alone significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Everything here has been written by the article subject and are little more than compilation of his work. I didn't go through all the sources above. but they seem to be more of the same thing. The first site appears to be a content aggregator that scrapes content from all over the web (including, it seems reddit), hamariweb is another site that lets users email their poetry in for posting and a download link for an eBook obviously does not show notability. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 192.76.8.70. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – obvious promotional autobiography is obvious. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--not notable, and the IP's analysis of the sourcing is valuable. The article (from which I just removed an "example") is a pretty sad attempt. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. The subject is not meeting WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the IP's rundown of the links. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:21, 20 April 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Becker[edit]

Alan Becker (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 does not meet WP:GNG guidelines.

The sources listed here are almost all trivial pulications. Half of them in the article are primary (YouTube, Kickstarter, etc.), while the rest of them are unreliable or unkown. I initally thought that the Huffington Post UK source listed there had decent covarage, but it was just trivial coverage again. The only Forbes source in the article is by a contributor, and notability can't be established there as per WP:FORBESCON. The only citation there that seemed to be reliable and have signifcant covarge is the Wall Street Journal source from 2007, which unfortunately requires a subscription.

There just seems to be no source in the article that is a verified, established publication with significant coverage. I tired looking for some media works and notability about this person, but yet again, all of it was trivial mentions from non-notable websites. Even though the subject is extremely popular on YouTube, this doesn't guarantee an article creation when the media doesn't make it notable elsewhere.

I think the best choice would be to draftify this for now. It could be WP:TOOSOON, and be worked on outside the mainspace. There could be some potential, significant coverage soon, but at the moment I can't find any of the sort. Sparkltalk 23:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I worked on the article a bit but it still needs improvement. While it needs more work, that does not negate the fact that the subject was featured in the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post UK, both of which are significant coverage, plus coverage in Forbes, Huffington Post UK and Smithsonian magazine. Passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:53, 13 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! 19:51, 14 April 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre Norris[edit]

Sabre Norris (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 reliable references given, or indication of notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for lack of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY. I have significantly edited the page, adding numerous RSs. Contributors please note that unsupported comments such as "lack of notability", without any supporting reasoning are not helpful to the decision making process here. Relevantly, SPORTCRIT is effectively WP:GNG; and WP:SPORTSPERSON states: A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. A rudimentary Google search produced numerous RSs; and more were easily found using WikiLibrary. Absence of citations is not a reason to delete: it's a reason to improve the page. Please be mindful of WP:ATD. Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. Also, per WP:NEXIST, notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. North America1000 07:30, 14 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! 19:48, 14 April 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! 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Sadovskiy[edit]

Pavel Sadovskiy (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 evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 16:59, 14 April 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! 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Beauty Queens[edit]

Ethiopian Beauty Queens (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 can't find any reliable sources Ficaia (talk) 15:57, 14 April 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. Consensus is stronger that WP:NSONG has been met. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True Lies (song)[edit]

True Lies (song) (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 one source is actually talking about the subject, and it's only for approximately a sentence-and-a-half. That could easily be merged into the album's article (although that doesn't look much better). Nothing else here proves notability. Made a PROD for this that was removed, similar PROD for Shame About That was also removed but that article was converted to a redirect to the album, I would support that move here as well. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charted on one of Billboard's charts. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NSONG: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" Aside from the obvious "may be notable" point, I'd also like to emphasise the use of plural "charts", implying a want for multiple. This song only appeared on one chart (Hot Country Songs) and (in my opinion) didn't even have a very impressive chart run, only lasting for six weeks and peaking at a position that no longer exists on the chart (Peaked at #59, chart only has 50 positions per WP). Unless there is missing chart data then that is definitely not enough for me, and even still more chart data wouldn't make up for the lack of coverage elsewhere. QuietHere (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: Shame About That has been unredirected, will be starting an AFD for that momentarily. QuietHere (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, charted single on Billboard, received media attention both before and after the fact for being the debut of a notable performer. The sources in the article pass WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with @Donaldd23: It has charted on Billboard and you're are forgetting the critique from No Depression. That is a credible source from credible journalist. Like I said with Sara's other singles, this song exemplifies her early career persona as a traditionally-minded country vocalist. The reader needs examples of notable songs that further explain this to better understand her career. It also one of Evans's self-penned tracks. This is an important descriptor to her as an artist indicating that she has several skill sets adding to her credibility as an artist. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The No Depression review doesn't specifically mention this song by name though. The "(such as 'True Lies')" excerpt in the WP article is built on an assumption that that is one of the songs being referred to, and that's gotta be a solid example of WP:OR. If the source isn't literally talking about this song, you can't just apply what it's saying as you please. And again, it charted on one chart and didn't even peak in the top 50 there. That argument is flying in the face of WP policy. QuietHere (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now the consensus appears to not be in your favor. Your opinion is not the only one being inputted here. I will keep looking for information in the mean time to further prove the point this article makes. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This kind of back-and-forth discussion about sources is normal and is how information about the article is brought to light. AFD is not a contest where one "side" wins. Stick to the policies and the facts and the disposition of the article should become clear. Lamona (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I found another article explaining why Evans believed this song did not chart higher on the Billboard chart. This source is from Country Standard Time, a reputable country music site written by journalists and writers. I added this to article. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: I've posed a query about this song's chart run at WT:SONGS, hoping to clear up my own apparent confusion at some of the policy in question. I'd prefer to see a consensus established there before this closes, if that's allowed, as it may have a significant effect on this AFD's outcome. Thank you for your patience. QuietHere (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NSONGS is clear that charting alone is not enough to meet notability criteria. None of the sources discuss the song at length, and that is what is required for notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sara Evans - The highest chart position this song reached was 59. The #1 source here does not mention this particular song, and really should be removed. The article says that the song got positive reviews, but only one is cited, and the Country Standard Time article talks about how disappointing the sales were for the album, and states: "The first single, "True Lies," released in March 1997, only reached 59, while a third single, the more uptempo "Shame About That," did slightly worse." This does make it seem that the song was not successful. So far I haven't found in depth RS about this song. Lamona (talk) 01:39, 17 April 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! 18:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevem Lopes Botelho[edit]

Kevem Lopes Botelho (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)

Kevem Lopes Botelho

This association football player does not satisfy either general notability or the now-deleted association football notability guideline. There is only one reference, which does not provide independent significant coverage. He has not played in the first tier of the Brazilian football system, although that no longer matters.

Previously deleted on an expired PROD as not satisfying general notability or association football notability. Nothing seems to have changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 14 April 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 Subdomain#Server cluster. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWW2[edit]

WWW2 (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 about how "www2" can be used as an alternative to "www" as a hostname for a web server. Seriously, that's it. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Subdomain#Server cluster I wasn't able to find enough sources indicating that this subdomain is notable in and of itself, but the page gets enough traffic (5800 views in the last 30 days) that a redirect may be useful. Sunmist (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article has no sources and in its current state must be deleted. However, I think that there is some potential for expansion of the article with more sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite one such source, because I'd be amazed to see such a barmy approach to this subject. This is just a systematic procedure of adding …1, …2, …3, and so forth to names, and no-one sensible documents this in terms of the individual names generated in this way. They're examples, at best. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unsourced shallow observation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation to Subdomain#Server cluster, Web 2.0, Internet2, WWII As many ordinary users will probably confuse concepts like "world wide web", "web", and "internet", and in case someone typed an extra w when typing WW2. C933103 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 14 April 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! 23:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Party of Florida[edit]

Reform Party of Florida (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 state branch of a notable federal party. The party achieved no electoral success, with its only notable performances being in races with no major-party opposition. Most other coverage revolves wholly around federal campaigns related to the federal party exclusively. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Any useful information can be merged into appropriate articles. Toa Nidhiki05 14:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to see an ATD of Merge per Nom. If that does not find consensus then I will side with Delete. One only has to look at the 11 year membership, a peak of 4,616, to be skeptical. A somewhat novel idea might be to merge to the National affiliate, the Alliance Party (United States). The Start-class article mentions this affiliate, American Party of South Carolina, Independence Party of Minnesota, and Independent Party of Connecticut. It would be considered the parent article ( yet some want Wikipedia to grow beyond all wildest dreams, --or-- some just love creating new articles or turning red links blue, but it sometimes seems preferential to create an unassessed, stub, or start-class article instead of building a single far improved article. It might be of interest to find that the Modern Whig Party merged with the American Moderates Party and the American Party of South Carolina forming the Alliance Party. This is not mentioned in the Modern Whig Party article just that it ceased activities and became a think tank. My point is that sometimes fragmented articles would be better merged that would be a net positive for Wikipedia and certainly for readers' navigation. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability requirements, with no sources to demonstrate significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:02, 14 April 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. Two participants in the discussion asserted that there is significant coverage of the subject and there were no objections raised. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namaganda Christine[edit]

Namaganda Christine (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:NSPORT, WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep My online searched found a few things, and notably, the article has her first and surname reversed! I added them in, and while I'm not good at ascertaining what is a reliable source in Ugandan and chess press, it seems like the following articles indicate notability.
  1. https://kawowo.com/2017/01/09/i-was-the-best-in-2016-says-christine-namaganda/
  2. https://www.ntv.co.ug/ug/news/sports/women-s-day-chess-christine-namaganda-wins-inaugural-tournament-3741656
If there is something about these sources that I don't know that indicates they are not reliable, please tell me and I'll be open minded to adjust my opinion, but based on what I see, she is notable. I would urge anyone trying to assess this themselves to also search for her with her correct name Christine Namaganda not Namaganda Christine. CT55555 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Kawowo Sports source above is WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. It does contain a brief interview, however, there is more than sufficient WP:INDEPTH material outside the interview. The NTV article is insignificant coverage. A book by Tim Crothers (translated at least into German and Italian) contains more SIGCOV: The Queen of Katwe: One Girl's Triumphant Path to Becoming a Chess Champion (2012). Together sufficient for the WP:GNG. It's very well possible that there are more great sources. I went for the low hanging fruit. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 17 April 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. North America1000 19:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavol Piatka[edit]

Pavol Piatka (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 evidence of notability from a google search: just databases Ficaia (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to link any of this "related content"? At present, no one has shown sigcov. Ficaia (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE - you need to comply with it. GiantSnowman 06:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A google search turned up nothing but database entries. If you've found other sources, you should link them here. Ficaia (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GS. Another bad nom as the subject is a top-class footballer and referee with long experience in both roles. Article is a valid stub to be expanded in due course. As in several other cases, the nominator has failed to perform an adequate WP:BEFORE which is mandatory ahead of raising an AfD. NGS Shakin' All Over 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker, what makes you say they haven't performed and adequate BEFORE search? –dlthewave ☎ 12:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:SIGCOV has been provided, and per the nominating statement no evidence of notability from a google search a WP:BEFORE search was attempted. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is based on SIGCOV, not number of appearances, and I'm not seeing any. –dlthewave ☎ 12:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can only find trivial coverage of this former footballer/referee online (mostly match reports and database entries, plus the occasional whine about him missing a penalty or such). I don't see how WP:GNG can be met based on online search results, and this footballer played in the internet-area. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: The only potentially WP:SIGCOV I could find is here. That said, I was unable to find much else outside of passing mentions which gives me cause for concern for subject's notability. However, I'm also cognizant that additional sourcing may exist in other languages (such as Slovak like the one I found) that may not be as easily discovered for me. GauchoDude (talk) 12:59, 21 April 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! 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashiqur Zaman[edit]

Ashiqur Zaman (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. Article also fails the former version of WP:NCRIC, as playing in the Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League did not confer notability under that guideline either Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had a look and couldn't find anything. Playing in a youth tournament doesn't make someone notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 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! 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SM Meherob[edit]

SM Meherob (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. Article also fails the former version of WP:NCRIC, as playing in the Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League did not confer notability under that guideline either Joseph2302 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had a look and couldn't find anything. Playing in a youth tournament doesn't make someone notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 19 April 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Mamun (cricketer, born 1990)[edit]

Abdullah Al Mamun (cricketer, born 1990) (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. Article also fails the former version of WP:NCRIC, as playing in the Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League did not confer notability under that guideline either Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 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 14:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Hacker[edit]

Rüdiger Hacker (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)

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. His roles to not appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR J04n(talk page) 13:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Germany. J04n(talk page) 13:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror. We says IMDb is not reliable, we need to start actually acting like this is our view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that Hacker's roles aren't significant enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR, and my search found no significant coverage in reliable sources for purposes of the GNG. I suppose it's possible that there are offline sources that I'm missing (and, obviously, no prejudice against recreation if such sources are found), but as it stands I simply can't find any evidence that Hacker is notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 21 April 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 Soviet Union at the 1956 Winter Olympics. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Yakimov[edit]

Boris Yakimov (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)

Just a database entry. Didn't win any medals. Ficaia (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Blue Square Thing and Lugnuts. XtraJovial (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For a redirect to make sense it has to be plausible that people searching for "Boris Yakimov" are looking for THIS Boris Yakimov. However a simple GBooks search shows that there are a significant number of other Boris Yakimovs that people may be searching for who are equally (non) notable. The most prominent of these appears to have been Soviet Trade representative to Cuba before becoming the President of SUDOIMPORT, a prominent state-owned Russian shipping company. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as there's no indication anyone is looking for the Trade Rep/businessman instead of the Olympian. If that changes, a DAB can be created and the redirect updated. Star Mississippi 13:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no evidence that anyone is looking for this Olympian, nor is it plausible that people are necessarily looking for him and not for another Boris Yakimov, that's the entire point! FOARP (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Star Mississippi - seems to me a far more sensible analysis than any of the opposing arguments and much more in keeping with the tenor of WP:REDIRECT.Ingratis (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This page received an average number of 9 visits per month last year, all/nearly-all of which will have been webcrawlers/bots (~9 visits per month is the number of visits you would expect if no actual human visitors had loaded the page during that time). Who, exactly, is supposed to be searching for Boris Yakimov and looking for a bare mention of his name right at the bottom of this page and not some other Boris Yakimov? FOARP (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

István Bethlen (polo player)[edit]

István Bethlen (polo player) (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 evidence of notability; just database entries. I can only find sources on his father. Ficaia (talk) 12:19, 14 April 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) Ficaia (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Paul[edit]

Leroy Paul (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 evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article does need referencing improvement, but (a) the Canadian Football League is a top-level professional league which does constitute a valid notability claim, and (b) he was on the Grey Cup winning roster in 1983, which is an even more important reason why we should be keeping something. Note as well that a guy who was playing 40 years ago is not going to be readily sourceable to Google hits, and will have to have his referencing retrieved from archives like ProQuest or Newspapers.com — and indeed, I get 94 hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstream collection (which is even more impressive considering that in the early 1980s it basically only archives The Globe and Mail alone, with other newspapers starting to show up only later in the decade) and over 700 hits in Newspapers.com (which is where you have to go to find early 1980s coverage from most of the newspapers that start showing up in ProQuest five or ten years later), which means the coverage most certainly is there to improve it with. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearcat. As with several other cases, the OP has failed to perform BEFORE and has ignored or failed to understand significant facts in the article. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no evidence of notability? This person played not one, not two, not three, but six seasons (for a grand total of 77 games) in the CFL, the highest level in Canadian football there is (and probably the second-highest level of gridiron). Plus, I'm getting a lot of results on Newspapers.com, but I don't have the time to go through them all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 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 Crab Game so that some content may be utilized on that article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dani (game developer)[edit]

Dani (game developer) (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:BIO. Only cited with three primary sources, with two linking to his YouTube channel. Secondary sources mentioning him do exist, but are only mere mentions and focus more entirely on his games rather than himself. Jurta talk 07:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't fail WP:CREATIVE, considering he has major role "in co-creating a significant or well-known work" for example "Muck" and Crab Game. >>> Extorc.talk(); 08:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Crab Game, Not notable enough for his own page, but should fit as a section in his work.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, his games have made top charts on game platforms like Steam and Speedrun.com and he has more than 3 Million subscribers on YouTube, has collaborated with big names like MrBeast and Dream and has pretty big reddit following. I doubt he is not notable enough.
    Some creators who have their pages but aren't as notable or are as notable as Dani.
    Alfie Deyes
    Danielle Jones (physician)
    Keith Hughes (historian)
    Melody Oliveria
    Jordindian >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    friendly Reminder that just because Other Stuff Exists does not mean this article is notable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even without that, what I'm saying is still the same, he is pretty notable based on the criterion I gave. Moreover since this deletion was nominated, I have expanded the page, perhaps you could have a look. >>> Extorc.talk 07:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isnt based on popularity, if that were the case then every single youtuber with over 1k subs would have their own wikipedia article. Also looking at the added sources, They all appear to be minor mentions, 1 of them is just an alt url to his youtube video which was already cited. I really dont see how this article is notable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability guidelines. Only Polygon has the high reliability on sourcing, but was only a passing mention and mostly talks about the Crab game just like other sources. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless he was involved in Far Cry 6 and Assassin's Creed, I find nothing about him. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Crab Game As this is his only work that has a Wikipedia article, and a short section about how the creator and background information would likely be useful. Jumpytoo Talk 20:14, 15 April 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. Sandstein 10:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Warwick[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Louisa Warwick (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 sourcing for this article is mostly blogs and promotional pieces. I found many of the claims were not fully supported (for example, the list of brands she had modelled for, and her birth date, which did not appear in the archived version of the cited source, which was dated later than that cited). The article turned out to be heavily reliant on Thrive Global, which is blacklisted, apparently for being a churnalism vehicle with no editorial oversight. That source may be found archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20201203112748/https:// /stories/inside-influence-one-on-one-with-louisa-warwick/ (insert t_____g_____.com in the space between slashes). Performing a search for additional references today, I was able to add an approximate birth year from a fluff article in UK Metro—like the New York Post, which the article previously cited for her filing a lawsuit, this is a low-quality tabloid—and I found an aggregate "Who is ...?" article that I used to reference some more details and reduce the reliance on Thrive Global ... but that's Time Bulletin, which is also blacklisted. That reference is https:// /who-is-louisa-warwick/ (insert t___b_______.com in the space between slashes). These are not quality sources, I cannot even discuss them on Wikipedia without limbo dancing under a blacklist barrier as if they are going to infect everyone's comp with malware, and they are the only extended informational articles about Louisa Warwick that appear to exist. The lack of reliable coverage indicates to me that she has not achieved notability since the previous article, Louisa Warwick (model), was deleted in October 2015. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild Keep She's got an article she wrote in Forbes [2] and a mention in the New York Times [3], I think she just makes it for notability. She's featured in Maxim and mentioned by TMZ, which are reliable sources; I can't open Maxim at work, for obvious reasons, will review later for notability. Also find an interview from a local paper in 2009, can help build notability, about her going into modelling. [4]. A reliable mention in Digital Spy about her leaving the Top Model show [5]. I video interview with OK magazine of her via youtube (should be ok as it's from a notable source, posted from their account) [6]. She ran track in high school, competed in an event in Ireland, [7]. She also gave an interveiw in Medium, which isn't as reliable a source, but can at least be used to confirm the athletics claim [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per AndyTheGrump. Also given that Maxim does pay-for-coverage I wouldn't consider it an RS, and the Forbes article appears to have been through the Forbes Council program, which also involves publishing for a fee. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Forbes source is useless for notability. Firstly, it's not actually about her, just written by her. Secondly, it was published under the "Forbes Business Council" fee-for-publication scheme. Per WP:FORBESCON we consider them self-published works. AusLondonder (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the significant secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 21 April 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. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Healing River[edit]

Healing River (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 real indication of notability, most of these sources seem to be associated with the film or Christian publications likely to promote such a film: does not indicate wider notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I began creating this page yesterday, and have not finished entering info and sources. My bad -- I did not realize I was working in "real time" and that the page had already been published. I plan to finish entering info and sources shortly. OgHollow (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Initial creation has been completed, with the exception of a still-needed Accolades (awards) section. Thank you for your patience! OgHollow (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some cleanup and left notes on the article talk page about the sourcing and reasons for removal of some of the sourcing and content. Offhand there are only two usable sources, one is a local article about the film's premiere and the other is a review. It's not really enough to justify a keep on my end, but I'm hoping to find more coverage when I search. There's mention of awards, but most film awards aren't considered to be major enough to give notability on Wikipedia, so I'll consider those not major unless I see coverage for them while I search. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the magazine was more of an article than a review, but I did find a review from the Dove Foundation and added that. So two articles and one review. Both of the articles are local-ish coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This only has three usable sources to establish notability. Two of these fall within the bounds of local coverage, one is a review. It would be a keep if I had one more good source, preferably a review, but there's just not anything out there beyond what I found. If someone can find another good source I'm open to changing my mind. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete regretfully. It seems this movie sank without a ripple. Not opposed to re-creation if it eventually attracts sufficient coverage for notability.--Jahaza (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ester Nurumi Tri Wardoyo[edit]

Ester Nurumi Tri Wardoyo (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 pass the WP:NBAD. zoglophie 11:41, 14 April 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. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supercinema[edit]

Supercinema (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)

Likely does not meet WP:NB. I have tried to look up the book itself and cannot find any evidence of its significance. Tow (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Film, and Education. Justiyaya 09:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did some work to this article before making this comment. It is briefly mentioned in LA Review of books, which doesn't add very much, but it is mentioned in the context of how it influenced a philosophy book by notable philosopher [Paul Virilo]]. Combined with another academic review, I say keep on the basis of WP:BK with the two non-trivial things being the other book and the academic paper. CT55555 (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: We could probably justify an article for the author, he looks like he's likely notable in his own right. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You inspired me: William Brown (author) CT55555 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as has coverage in academic sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As per the source available in the article. DMySon (talk) 12:40, 21 April 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 11:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio R. Alvarez[edit]

Antonio R. Alvarez (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)

Attempts to find sources were moot; nothing of him seems to exist, and the current sources are "email correspondence" -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I haven't yet done a BEFORE search to see if any sourcing exists, so will hold off on !voting for now; but I noticed that the article creator's user name is the same as his wife's name listed in the article "infobox" table. There is a might be a WP:COI. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seem to be getting absolutely nothing for "Antonio R. Alvarez" in the more than 230 sources that I consult with a custom search engine, and Google gives me the Wikipedia page, and the Facebook and Instagram accounts for other people with the same name. Vexations (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Unreliable and not independent with email and wife in mind. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any reliable sources about the subject of this article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "email correspondence" as a ref is a first. This might even qualify for an WP:A7 speedy. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've held off on this to research whether his company, Alvarez Conservation was notable (it's not), as a NYT article mentioned his business that worked to preserve documents damaged during the 9/11 attacks. This BEFORE search did not result in anything that could contribute to his notability as an artist or business person or corporation. He came late to his painting career (born in 1941, started painting in 2010) which is admirable; it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON but at this time he does not meet our criteria for GNG or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, and the sources are awful being emails and naturalisation papers. Pikavoom Talk 06:14, 20 April 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 11:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hafeez Mirza[edit]

Abdul Hafeez Mirza (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)

There are no sources used, and after finding nothing on google, I suggest this person is not notable for a Wikipedia article. -- ☽☆ NotCharizard (talk) 10:43, 14 April 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 by an Admin per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Naik[edit]

Aamir Naik (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:BEFORE due diligence done and there no indication that this young artist meets WP:SINGER, WP:ANYBIO, or any number of other policies and guidelines for articles about living people. In my opinion, Jamia_Masjid_Ramban has been given adequate enough guidance about creating articles. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 Shirt58 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 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. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Stefan of Austria[edit]

Archduke Stefan of Austria (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)

An essentially unsourced article about an ordinary person who apparently has an article because he holds a long-extinct (indeed, by now fictitious) title of nobility. Such titles do not confer notability, see WP:MONARCH. The contents of the article are almost entirely genealogical, see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BIO, and a Google News search for his German name reveals nothing. It's also worth noting that he has no article in the German-language Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Michigan. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm opposed to the deletion of this biographical entry for Archduke Stefan of Austria, as it has historical interest for those interested in the history of the House of Hapsburg and the Hapsburg Empire.....M.C. O'Connor 76.24.137.110 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is someone born in 1932 relevant to the history of the Hapsburg Empire? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of us interested in the history of the Hapsburg Empire, it provides a connection for the present-day with the beginnings of the Empire in medieval times.....M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested enough in the history of the Hapsburg Empire to know that it finished in 1918. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Empire finished in 1918, but the House of Hapsburg remains a valid link to past history, and remains of historical interest and relevance. Windemere2 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be one thing if he were the head of the house, but he wasn't.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need to rid Wikipedia of deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deposed Monarchy information remains part of history, and is a link between the past and the present......M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This is a vaguely sweet biography of an utterly ordinary person who, as far as I can tell, has never been subject of any coverage in any reliable sources whatsoever. --JBL (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of the article remains of historical interest and relevance as a present-day representative of the House of Hapsburg, and a link to the past. Windemere2 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject was really a representative of the House of Hapsburg, rather than a normal US citizen just getting on with his life, and was a link to the past, then surely there would be some reliable sources, such as books, that have coverage of him? Please tell us about such sources, without which there is no way this article can be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While working as an executive at General Motors, he authored at least two books: Humans in Seats (1977) and The Creative Attitude (1960s). He coauthored : Mass and Weight Distribution in Cars (1969) and What Really Connects in Seating (1977). (All published by General Motors). He also authored Human Factors: Evaluation of Headlight Switching Systems (1974). He also has several technical papers on automobile safety and comfort published on SAE Technical Papers series. My own interest in him derives from his being a representative of the House of Hapsburg, but he's nonetheless a published author. Windemere2 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And which of the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR does he meet? --JBL (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    'Any Biography' (part of the historical record of the House of Hapsburg), and perhaps also 'Creative professional'. Windemere2 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What this needs are independent sources that write about him, not sources that he wrote himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you did not understand the question, so let me ask it again. You asserted that, as a published author, he is notable. There are tens of thousands of published authors who are not notable, and about whom articles do not and never will exist. The guideline WP:NAUTHOR to which I linked gives four criteria that someone could pass to achieve notability as an author. I asked you to identify which of those criteria he meets. Observe that answering this question requires evidence, not repetition of your feelings about members of the House of Hapsburg. (For example: if two of the books he wrote were each the subject of multiple book reviews in the automotive press, that would be evidence that he might pass point 3. And if you were to produce evidence that such reviews existed, I would seriously consider changing my !vote.) JBL (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefan Habsburg is mentioned in the book "Of Firebirds and Moonmen" by Norman James, 2007. The book is for sale on Amazon and can be accessed on Amazon by googling 'Of Firebirds and Moonmen'. The book apparently deals with the design and development of the Firebird automobile. There are several reviews of the book on Amazon.
    The book is also reviewed on the automotive design website 'Dean's Garage'. That review can be accessed by googling 'Stefan Habsburg Dean's Garage' or 'Of Firebirds and Moonmen Part One'. Here's an excerpt from the book that is reprinted in that review: "... the studio was set up with two designers, Stefan Habsburg, a graduate of MIT who's specialty was mechanical and system design..." Windemere2 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When you continue reading down through that lengthy excerpt, he's mentioned multiple more times. Windemere2 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But that book is not a reliable source, because it is self-published via Xlibris.[9] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Xlibris has an article on Wikipedia, that doesn't mention anything about it being considered an unreliable source for published information. If it's an unreliable source for published information, why isn't that stated on its Wikipedia article ? It would seem to be relevant and important information. Windemere2 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to have a good reputation as a book-publishing company. Windemere2 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are book-reviews that appear on the Amazon site considered reliable sources ? Is Dean's Garage, a well-respected automotive website, a reliable source ? Are all books published by Xlibris automatically considered unreliable sources of information ? Windemere2 (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first four words of the Wikipedia article about Xlibris show that it is unreliable, in that it performs no fact-checking. And, in answer to your other questions, Amazon reviews are also user-generated, so unreliable, and are you really saying that Dean's Garage is a reliable source? It is nothing more than one person's web site.[10] Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The book is also reviewed on the Barnes and Noble site. In the Overview, it states "The design of the Firebird III is the heart of the book and is its reason for existing. AS the last surviving member of the four principals in its design (Harley Earl, Bob McClean, and Stefan Habsburg being the others), the author feels obligated to assure that the story behind those closed studio doors is told....Of Firebirds and Moonmen is heavily documented with photographs, illustrations and graphics, which were prepared at General Motors as proposal and contract deliverables..." This Overview can be accessed by googling ' Barnes and Noble Overview Of Firebirds and Moonmen'
    Are all user-generated sites considered unreliable sources ? The book also has a review on Goodreads, and a multitude of other user-generated book-review sites. Windemere2 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SELFPUB. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To the best of my knowledge, the Overview statement on the Barnes and Noble site isn't user-generated, but rather reflects Barnes and Noble itself. 76.24.137.110 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter whether the Barnes and Noble overview is reliable or not, because it only gives the subject the barest of bare mentions in a list in parentheses without saying anything about him other than that he was one of this team. The book itself is definitely self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very barebones article with little notability.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:67 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much of a dispute here. If he was notable, you would expect sources to be apparent. They're not apparent because he isn't notable. AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of sources. Some people would just rather get rid of this article than to look for them. From the moment of his birth, he was the subject of newspaper coverage. This continued throughout his life even in the United States. I'll keep adding other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcferran (talk • contribs)
    None of the sources you've added so far is even vaguely in the vicinity of what WP:GNG requests. The actual problem here is that the people who write these articles have no interest in what an encyclopedia is. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have now shown that Stefan's birth, baptism, marriage, birth of first son, and death were the topic of articles published in major newspapers in Vienna, Boston, New York, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:52, 18 April 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria[edit]

Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria (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)

Same issue as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archduke Sigismund of Austria (born 1966) (the son of this article's subject): An ordinary person who apparently has an article because he holds a long-extinct (indeed, by now fictitious) title of nobility. Such titles do not confer notability, see WP:MONARCH. The contents of the article are entirely genealogical, see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BIO, and a Google News search for his German title and name (Erzherzog Leopold Franz) reveals nothing. It's also worth noting that he has no article in the German-language Wikipedia. Sandstein 08:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 08:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only genealogical information, no indication of notability (and I couldn't find anything in-depth by searching). Not by itself a reason for deletion, but the article doesn't seem to include his legal name and title in Austria (probably something like Mr Leopold Franz Habsburg?) —Kusma (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm opposed to deleting this biographical article on Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria, as it has interest for those interested in the history of the House of Hapsburg, and the Hapsburg Empire.....M.C. O'Connor 76.24.137.110 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any connection to the Habsburg empire. —Kusma (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of us interested in the history of the Empire, it provides a connection between Medieval times with the present-day....M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They might apply for the head of the house, but he was at best, a head of a junior branch. 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would the article include information about his legal name in Austria? He was born in Germany, lived in Uruguay and the United States, and claimed to be the head of a grand ducal house in Italy. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I misunderstood. I thought he had Austrian citizenship. If he was German, I expect he was Mr von Habsburg. —Kusma (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more deposed monarchy cruft. He was born well after the monarchy ended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deposed Monarchy information is a link between the past and the present, and continues to be of historical interest and relevance.....M.C.O'Connor76.24.137.110 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain this article needs to be improved, not deleted. Archduke Leopold Franz was head of his house, and was referred to as such in reference books on the topic. The fact that some people don't like the topic and think that all material on that topic should be removed from Wikipedia is not an argument that should be considered. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any reliable sources about Mr Habsburg that would confirm he meets the WP:GNG? —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the citation for an obituary (not the paid type) in La Nazione (as well as several other sources). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete consists purely of genealogical/family information sourced to a directory of European royal families (WP:NOT#DIR) and a website which doesn't look like a reliable source. It's also at least a little dubious for the article to refer to him as "Archduke Leopold Franz of Austria" since it admits that Austria hasn't recognised any such thing for over a hundred years. Hut 8.5 16:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then modify the article to omit the 'Archduke' and 'Austria' references, and make it simply 'Leopold Franz of Hapsburg', because it still has historical validity, for those interested in the current state of the House of Hapsburg. Windemere2 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This historical validity here being that he is a descendant of notable people? JBL (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and notable himself as well, as a representative of the historic House of Hapsburg. Windemere2 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is deceased, so he doesn't represent the current state.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:67 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being deceased doesn't mean he no longer represents the House of Hapsburg. Look at all the deceased individuals who have biographies on Wikipedia, and represent the institutions that they were once part of. This is reminiscent of the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Nationality represents the current citizenship of an individual. Ethnicity represents their biological and historical descent for as far back as it's traceable, and down to the present. Both are of interest and relevant to their contemporary descendants. Look at all the google references from the public asking "Are there any current descendants of the Hapsburgs ?" or " Is the House of Hapsbburg extinct ?" There is quite a bit of public interest in the current state of the House. Windemere2 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, not even for descendants of defunct royal families. If it is not possible to write an encyclopedic biography of someone, then there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about them, regardless of who googles what. -- JBL (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that he represents the current state of the house, seems like a stretch as the current state would refer to its living members, of whom he is not one, so if anything, he would represent a former state of the house.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have made some updates to the article, including an obituary from La Nazione, the main newspaper in Florence. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RetainI'm requesting that this article be retained. Windemere2 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very little non-genealogical content.2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:67 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is factually incorrect. More than half of the content is non-genealogical. The genealogical content is appropriate for a prince who claimed (and was recognised) as Head of the House of Lorraine in Tuscany. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one paragraph doesn't have some sort of genealogical content. In any case, it needs to be established that the page meets Wikipedia:Notability (people).2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was not "recognized" as a prince, a recognized prince has a domain he controls, this person did not. Just being recognized as the top claimant to a title with no domain or power is of no meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what's involved by "recognition". Not all princes/archdukes control a domain. 'Prince' or 'Archduke' can also be honorifics, or courtesy titles, or indicate a position in a family line of succession. Windemere2 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The title "Archduke of Austria" is a specific, and fictitious, claim. "Indicating a position in a family line of succession" is precisely what WP:NOTINHERITED rules out. --JBL (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that would speak to revising the article rather than deleting it. 76.24.137.110 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, 'inherited notability' isn't necessarily the sama as 'a line of succession'. Windemere2 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The family was deposed and removed from power before his birth. There is no real title to hold. It is a fictious false title. People who hold fictitious false titles are not notable for such, period. He did not actual hold a recognized title within a recognized power. the family was deposed before his birth, thus this is deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a courtesy title or honorific. Windemere2 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A 'courtesy title' (see Wikipedia) is a title used by custom or courtesy. It especially applies to nobility. It might be comparable to an honorary college degree, although those come by award, rather than through custom. Windemere2 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't be confused with a 'substantive title', which I think is the kind of title you're referring to above. However, the clarification could be added to the article that the title is 'courtesy' and not 'substantive'. Windemere2 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no objection to "Archduke" being removed from the title of the article, and the fact that it is a courtesy title rather than a substantive (real) one, could be explained in the body of the article. Windemere2 (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In Germany, "Prinz" is not a title, just a part of the surname of some people. —Kusma (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right."Erzherzog von Osterreich, Prinz von Toskana" are part of the surname, as shown in the article. They aren't shown as titles. Windemere2 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any source for that? In comparison, dewiki calls his grandfather de:Peter Ferdinand von Österreich-Toskana. —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 19 April 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. Sandstein 09:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitationally-interacting massive particles[edit]

Gravitationally-interacting massive particles (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 based on incorrect extrapolations of sources, which counts as original research WP:NOR, and unreliable sources WP:Reliability written by an author with the same name as the person who created this article (which is also potentially covered by WP:NOR). LewriBaedi (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of independent reliable sources out there on this topic, more than one included in the article. The problems with the article, including the apparent COI, aren't a reason to delete it. Unless perhaps it was so bad that it needed to be blown up, and I don't see that. It is a somewhat niche theoretical possibility related to an extremely important topic (dark matter); does that make it independently notable? Probably. Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lithopsian bascially. The first reference doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.012 uses GIMP and is not by Kleinert. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought I'd agree with Lithopsian and Headbomb, but the more I dig into this, the less sure I am. The paper that Headbomb mentions has only been cited 15 times in twelve years, mostly as a passing mention, and I'm not finding any secondary coverage at all. For example: "Many other theories have been proposed to account for the Universe’s dark matter, most of which are not as promising as those already discussed. These include Q-balls, WIMPzillas, branons, and GIMPs [55–57]."[1] None of the recent surveys of dark matter candidates I looked at mention them. I don't think the case for this article is open-and-shut. PianoDan (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the situation I'm finding myself in; there's not nearly as much out there as I had first guessed there would be. Moreover, at least a few of the instances of the term "gravitationally interacting massive particle" appear to be about distinct concepts, i.e., not Kleinert's singularities. I don't think the Kaluza–Klein particles of the source Headbomb provided or those in the proposal of Cho and Kim are what Kleinert hypothesized. So far, the instances of the term "gravitationally interacting massive particle" not by Kleinert have just meant "a massive particle that interacts only by gravity", as opposed to weakly interacting massive particles, which interact via gravity and some other force. So, at the moment, I'm not seeing a good "keep" case here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first GS hit [11] also uses the term in a generic sense, rather than being an independent source taking notice of Kleinert's specific idea. "Purely gravitational dark matter" [12] is a synonym for the more general meaning that may be somewhat more common. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included "GIMP" in my searches because just using the words "gravitationally interacting massive particles" produced too many unrelated terms, but the results I got appeared to be widespread and significant. I've just been scanning abstracts, maybe I need to read deeper. Is the article too narrowly focused on a type of GIMP favoured by Keinert that is different from other definitions of GIMPs? Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article text is narrowly focused on Kleinert's proposal, which is different from others and which seems to have had not much influence at all. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK, this is where I've ended up. Excluding all the false positives — the appearances in papers that use the same phrase to mean something else — there just isn't enough to merit an article about Kleinert's proposal specifically. Revising the page to reflect the actual ways the term has been used would amount to blowing it up and starting over again, and it's not clear that the topic of "hypothetical dark-matter particles that only interact gravitationally" needs to be under this title, or even have a whole page unto itself. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Garrett, Katherine; Duda, Gintaras (8 December 2010). "Dark Matter: A Primer". Advances in Astronomy. 2011: e968283. doi:10.1155/2011/968283.
  • Delete Yeah, I think I'm there too. PianoDan (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really should have further explained myself, so thank you to PianoDan and XOReaster for their discussion. If we look at the sources: source 1 introduces a hypothetical particle which it calls Gravitationally-interacting massive particles, however it does not match the rest of the discussion of this article in terms of properties/composition or "implications"; source 2 is a conflict of interest, as well as unreliable - being "published" in a journal that does not disclose its supposed peer-review system and is clearly not a well regarded given its citescore and SJR values - and is not well regarded given it has only been cited 3 times in "published" works (again, none of which are reliable sources) according to InspireHEP; Sources 3-6 are fluff for the background section, irrelevant to the article, except reference 5 which is cited again in a completely nonsensical claim that constitutes original research; reference 7 then falls again under conflict of interest/original research as another Kleinert work, and I personally can't even verify its claims as it is not accessible; finally reference 8 is irrelevant fluff and serves no purpose except masking the inadequacies of this article (WP:MASK). So in summary, if this article is kept as is, then it is unreliable as only one or two sources are relevant to the main points of the article, and they are unreliable sources suffering a conflict of interest. If the article was to instead be blown up, then it would become a general article about any hypothetical particle that interacts only gravitationally, however that would likely still fall under notability issues due to there being very little literature on this topic, and certainly none that are well cited. I see no reason to allow this article to stay in its current condition, and I see little reason to blow it up for a rewrite about something so unnotable. LewriBaedi (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Gregorio Faría[edit]

José Gregorio Faría (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:NMODEL. Likely not notable: article's sources are either inaccessible, redirect elsewhere, or are only a trivial mention, while online searches yielded nothing significant except for a few user-generated biographical-style pages. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 08:04, 14 April 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, further sourcing has been added to the article during the discussion which appears to address the main concern. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stacia Joseph[edit]

Stacia Joseph (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 evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last two are primary sources and do not go towards WP:GNG, which the subject has to pass. The first one is significant coverage but not enough on its own. Alvaldi (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. As with several other cases, the OP has failed to perform BEFORE and has ignored or failed to understand significant facts in the article. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:NSPORTS is clear on that all athletes must pass GNG. No significant coverage is found in the article itself and of the three sources provided by Lugnuts, two are primary sources that do not go towards GNG which requires multiple sources. Alvaldi (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no WP:BEFORE has been done, on a two minute search, I've already found two decent sources and added them. Sure more exist, if people bothered to look- something I will continue to do when I have time, but which neither Ficaia or Alvaldi have given evidence of doing themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does anyone know if one or more Australian newspapers have a freely accessible newspaper archive? Most newspaper articles from around 2009 don't show up on Google searches. I imagine that there would be some content about her in archived newspapers from the time. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 To clarify, I did do a search and came up with the same three sources as Lugnuts. The Daily Telepraph article that is a significant source, the Waverley Hockey Club article that is a primary source and the Victorian Institute of Sport article that is also a primary source. I also found a bunch of brief mentions such as [13][14][15] that are not significant coverage. If you have better luck in finding significant sources then I am more than happy to change my !vote to keep. Alvaldi (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) Ficaia (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mátyás Balogh[edit]

Mátyás Balogh (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 evidence of notability: just a database entry Ficaia (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But do those sources demonstrate notability? I'm not sure they do. I'll close as keep if others disagree and/or improve the article. Ficaia (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes, as there's enough coverage of this chap to easily pass WP:GNG. A few more sources [20], [21], [22], and that's just from a basic Google search. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above, which demonstrate significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources don't need to be in English to demonstrate notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts and Joseph. This is another bad nomination by Ficaia following this farcical effort only yesterday. People who cannot read articles properly and cannot perform BEFORE should not be raising cases at AfD. Btw, Joseph is absolutely right about non-English sources. NGS Shakin' All Over 13:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@No Great Shaker: Well, feel free to improve the article if you can. It seems the only way to get these endless sports stubs improved is to AfD them. But I don't see anything in those news articles worth incorporating. Ficaia (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well firstly the purpose of AFD is not cleanup, contrary to what you're saying. But I don't see anything in those news articles worth incorporating if you think there's literally nothing to add to a two line stub from 8 sources about him, you're wrong, there's lots of content about him. You're openly using AFD for an incorrect purpose/to prove a point, stop this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: do those sources demonstrate notability. And I don't think they do, as the coverage in them is trivial. Ficaia (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, [23] is an article of about 7,000 characters dedicated solely to him. How is that not significant coverage? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the substance of those 7,000 characters. Do they indicate he is a notable archer? To me, the articles read like nationalistic hype bloated with a bunch of trivia. However, if someone else comes along who disagrees with me, I'll close as keep. Ficaia (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ficaia. There are three people here who disagree with you so, as with Bradman Ediriweera yesterday, perhaps you had better close as keep. Notability is signified by multiple independent sources and here we have eight. I suggest you stay away from AfD as you demonstrably do not understand how it works and, by insisting that AfD is a means of getting articles cleaned up or expanded, you are breaching the spirit of the facility, especially as you are apparently incapable of doing BEFORE properly. People have been sanctioned in the past for abusing AfD and you will end up at ANI yourself if you continue in this way. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymundo Torres (footballer)[edit]

Raymundo Torres (footballer) (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 evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - professional footballer in Mexico's top league; numerous appearances; nominator has not complied with WP:BEFORE in trying to locate coverage. over 7,500 results on Google News for 'Raymundo Torres futbol'. GiantSnowman 09:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GS. As with several other cases, the OP has failed to perform BEFORE and has ignored or failed to understand significant facts in the article. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Article makes clear that the subject had an extensive career at the highest levels of Mexican football, making the claim that there is "no evidence of notability" clearly nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails SPORTBASIC. Notability is based on significant coverage, not the number of games or level at which they've played. –dlthewave ☎ 12:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any and none is present in the article or has been presented here. The !keep arguments all fall into WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:ASSERTN and WP:Clearly notable without presenting any significant sources. Alvaldi (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll change my !vote to Keep per User:Jogurney's excelent work on finding sources. I feel the subject passes GNG with the coverage now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many appearances over 15 years in one of the top leagues in the world. Gosh, I've even watched him play for Atlante F.C. in a Champions League match against the Montreal Impact. Completely ignores consensus - and big BEFORE failure, with (as noted above) significant coverage (these are first two I found in seconds in google), such as this and this. Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I !voted to keep (see below), let's not exaggerate his career. Most of it was spent in the second level of Mexican football. He played in the Primera with Altante, but was not a first team regular at the club. He did appear in the 2008–09 CONCACAF Champions League for Atlante, but I don't think it's fair to say many Mexican clubs took the competition seriously (at least until after the group stage) as they typically fielded fringe or youth players in the earlier stages. Jogurney (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - I'd incorrectly assumed Leon was in the top division - still 10 appearances for Atlante in Liga MX, plus the 4 Champions League group-stage appearances. Yeah, they often didn't field the entire A-team for those old group-stage matches. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article about former professional footballer who played in Mexico's top division, and appears to be the subject of SIGCOV. I've added a few references to the article (primarily from El Sol de León and El Imparcial de Oaxaca) which I think get the article past WP:GNG. There are several more online non-trivial sources as well, which can be added when someone has time. Jogurney (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the coverage was always likely there given his career. Thankfully, Jogurney has now proved that it's a GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professional footballer with a number of appearances where again WP:BEFORE hasn't been done by the nominator, thankfully, Jogurney has now proven WP:GNG and there will be more sources out there.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 06:26, 20 April 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 11:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Buchanan Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chuck Buchanan Jr. (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)

Part time driver of no obvious notability. Fails WP:NSPORT, party of a swathe of poor articles created directly in mainspace by this editor who has failed to engage with UPE warnings, now at level 3 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:05, 14 April 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 11:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Arms[edit]

Tanner Arms (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:NSPORT part of a great swathe of non notable cruft by this editor and suspected UPE 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:57, 14 April 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 11:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrton Ori[edit]

Ayrton Ori (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:NSPORT, possible UPE, part of a swathe of WP:GNG articles by this editor 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did find this article about him in Autoweek. Not enough on its own though. Alvaldi (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - An argument can be made that this subject passes GNG; in addition to coverage in multiple Autoweek articles, we also have a local Spectrum News outlet [24] and 33 Dreams of Indy [25] However both of these are to at least some extent interviews, so their independence is questionable; additionally, 33 Dreams of Indy appears to be a blog with no news structure published on the website, so really, only 2 sources, 1 of which is questionable. Contrary to the way the article is written, this subject's biggest accomplishment is making 2 starts in the 24 Hours of Daytona in the Pro-Am LMP3 class which in and of itself is not enough to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT, nor does this subject pass when also taking into account his part-time appearances in junior open-wheel formulae and lone ARCA Series start. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:53, 15 April 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 renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Guirado[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Catalina Guirado (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 was deleted in 2017 and 2020. She does not seem to have done anything since 2010, so it is hard to imagine that there is some compelling new argument to keep this ref-bombed trivia-ridden promo piece. After this third AfD it should be salted. Edwardx (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Fashion, England, and New Zealand. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 4 pages of sources in GNews, all from unreliable sources as the Sun, Daily Mail and Mirror. Tabloids. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Guirado was, in actuality, an influential figure during the 90s-00s. She was considered to be big news during the time as a mega reality TV star, being featured in magazines, news articles, talk shows and most notably the reality shows she was known for. Her widespread attention is undeniable, and despite her move to other projects from the 2010s onwards, there still is a plethora of proof to illustrate her dominance in the TV scene during her time period. If you don't believe me, check the ref-bomb. Cleanup, sure. It needs one. But deletion is a step too far. ChefExists (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ChefExists, as this article is almost entirely your work, perhaps you might consider cleaning it up. Otherwise, there is every chance that it will be deleted in seven days. Of course, it may well be deleted in any event. Edwardx (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edwardx, given that this article has scarcely changed from the day it was reopened over a year ago, I do question as to why (if it needs a cleanup) it was allowed to be opened in the first place. Regardless, I'm not made of time and the prospect that my work may just be wiped either way isn't particularly motivating me, however if I do find any stimuli I may do as suggested. ChefExists (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems notable, but the sources are not quite up to snuff and neither is the article. Lot's of trimming, copyediting, and sourcing needed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENT/WP:BASIC - I found sources that include discussion of her role on I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here: BBC 2003, Guardian 2003, Guardian 2003, Independent 2003, BBC 2003 (about her eviction from the show, describing her as "the former TFI Friday star"), and a mention of her as a model and brief content about her as a singer (Guardian, 1999). Getty has also found her worthy of notice, e.g. 1, 2, 3, due to her TFI Friday role and Penthouse modeling. She was the cover model when Penthouse made an editorial shift, per Getty and the Independent (1997, also noting she "stars in TFI Friday"). The Telegraph (2003) also discusses her role on TFI Friday. Beccaynr (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:44, 14 April 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 19:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drown (film)[edit]

Drown (film) (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 almost totally unsourced, has Coi editing, and the one source only confirms that the film was selected fro the festival, not that it won any awards Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:16, 7 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! 05:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom the references are poorly sourced. Jeni Wolf (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being nominated for and winning awards from a major festival in the country should meet notablility guidelines per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 08:44, 20 April 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. If someone feels they could use the content for a merger, they may file a request at WP:REFUND for that purpose. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemont Seneca Partners[edit]

Rosemont Seneca Partners (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. This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz, from whom it cannot inherit notability per WP:NORG. Every single source is a trivial mention in an article about the founders; that means it fails WP:GNG as well. Keeping it around additionally risks WP:BLPVIO, as this is a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden. AlexEng(TALK) 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTADVOCACY, it is not Wikipedia's role or responsibility to fact-check or "correct the record" in any way. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, though not every news story or controversy is notable enough for its own article. KidAd • SPEAK 15:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If its not notable, why are we here? I sure wouldn't be here if it wasn't headline news. 2600:8804:6600:45:8DBD:A469:BD32:BF5C (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTNEWS. KidAd • SPEAK 19:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 2600:8804:6600:45:2CA2:4D0B:E598:F57C (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not wikipedia's role or responsibility to fact-check"
what the fuck is the point of this website if you don't fact-check the content? In its present state, this article is an embarassing jumbled mess that contradicts itself openly in the first two sentences. It should be deleted, or at the very least the first sentence should be removed until it can be verified as factual (beyond an article disputed directly by its subject). 70.17.101.198 (talk) 20:13, 5 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! 04:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Hunter Biden; nearly every source cited mentions it in connection with him.JMB1980 (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is an organization/company therefore WP:NCORP applies. The "notability" of this firm appears to stem from the link with Hunter Biden but there's nothing to show that this company is notable for any other reason. There are no in-depth references that discuss the company, only passing references with a mention here and there of a transaction. That fails our criteria for establishing notability. The Hunter Biden article already mentions this firm so I don't see any need for a Merge or Redirect. HighKing++ 11:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    nothing should be deleted this is an attempt of the biden crime family to cover information. plain and simple 108.191.190.172 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no crime, that's the issue. Nothing happened. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I want to draw this to a close but the discussion is still divided between merger, delete and redirect. I expected more participation in this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a non-notable company with a tangential connection to some conspiracy-related thing that didn't happen... Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 16 April 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 Daniel Quinn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food Race[edit]

Food Race (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:Neologism that is sufficiently covered in the David Quinn article and doesn't sufficiently account for the criticisms captured in human overpopulation. Doesn't appear to be a independently notable article. Sadads (talk) 03:37, 7 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! 05:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Daniel Quinn. Most of the content in that article appears to be WP:OR or dependant on primary sources. Doesn't seem it has enough usage for a standalone article. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 01:52, 15 April 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 MDC Holdings#Foundation. ✗plicit 11:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MDC/Richmond American Homes Foundation[edit]

MDC/Richmond American Homes Foundation (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)

Hate to AFD so fast, but they started this with a lot of sources that aren't sources, really. Link to where they are mentioned, primary source, not independent RS. Lacking in sigcov in rs, basically. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 7 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! 05:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The News Today (Iloilo)[edit]

The News Today (Iloilo) (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)

Notability in question. Google search mostly turns out a libel case between an Iloilo mayor and the editor and a columnist from the newspaper like this one. Although the incident is probably notable in Iloilo, its notability isn't inheritable. Google news archive only shows snippets that mentions that someone was working in said newspaper. Google Books have scant mentions like this book mentioning it just once in a list.

--Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:06, 7 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! 05:15, 14 April 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. North America1000 15:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guosa[edit]

Guosa (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 cited sources are either inaccessible or self-published. Neither the notability of the subject nor the correctness of the information can be verified. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: inaccessible sources are not a problem in principle, but some independent sources are certainly required. The 1992 article by Fakuade is independent (and seems rather critical of Igbinéwéká, or at least of Guosa). The Nigerian "National Institute for Cultural Orientation" piece and the Daily Trust articles are no longer accessible, so I can't judge those. There do seem to be more independent sources out there, criticizing or otherwise discussing the language. EG:
    • Iteogu, Odizuru, 2019. "The Role of Nigerian Translators in Promoting Nationhood and National Consciousness." KIU Journal of Social Sciences, 5. PDF
I can't access these in my local library, but maybe you can:
  • Attah, Mark. 1987 March. "The National Language Problem in Nigeria." Canadian Journal of African Studies. doi:10.1080/00083968.1987.10803838
  • Elugbe, Ben Ohi. 2009. "National language and national development." In L. Moshi and A. Ojó, Language Pedagogy and Language Use in Africa. ISBN 9781906704612
There is also at least passing mention here:
  • Akinnaso, F. Niyi. 1991. "Toward the development of a multilingual language policy in Nigeria." Applied Linguistics, 12: 29-61. doi:10.1093/applin/12.1.29
(from Akinnaso, p. 47: "It should be noted, however, that there are exceptions in each case. For example, there are northerners who would support English just as there are southerners who would support Hausa (Awonusi 1985; Newswatch, March 20, 1989, p. 15). Furthermore, there are exponents of pidgin English (see Goke-Pariola 1987), while there are yet others who would support an artificial language, such as Guosa (Igbineweka 1987).")
Cnilep (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we all agree that notability is not a temperorary thing. Therefore: if something was notable five or ten years ago, it still is. The same goes for newspaper articles as well: if an article is not accessible online anymore, that doesn't mean it has been unpublished. BTW, the article in the Daily Trust hasn't vanished at all, it's just that the link had to be fixed, see here. From what I can see (mind, I'm not an expert on Nigerian matters), the Daily Trust is a serious and reputable newspaper in Nigeria. Apart from the article mentioned in the references section, it published a few more articles and videos about Guosa, too: see this and this. I also found this article, in which a presidential candidate expresses his support for Guosa. With regard to Gbenga Fakuade's article: I don't have access to it either, but the journal Language Problems and Language Planning is a reputable source and I'm sure this particular issue or article can be purchased; at least we have proof that it exists and what it is about. Based on all this, I think we can conclude that in terms of notability, Guosa is in a position similar to (or even better than) languages like Afrihili, Toki Pona or Kotava. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 20:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per comments above. An interesting article too. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:10, 12 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! 05:14, 14 April 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. North America1000 04:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Griffiths (rugby league)[edit]

David Griffiths (rugby 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)

Not notable. A WP:BEFORE search returns no sources, and he doesn't meet the amended WP:RLN. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 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 withdrawn by nominator. I am opting to draftify the article in lieu of deletion. Consider improving in draftspace before submitting via Articles for creation. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vettuva Gounder[edit]

Vettuva Gounder (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 independent notability; fails WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vettuva Gounders are a distinct community in India. Also, I see no copyright claims as the complaint says that the content has since been removed. Seems prejudice. 117.219.195.124 (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright violations in question did not directly relate to the existing content on the page, rather they were mostly very old revisions of attempts in what I believe was Malayalam that were copied directly from various websites, mostly Blogspot, which has already been proven unreliable as per WP:BLOGS. No comment with regard to the distinction claim. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:49, 14 April 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 Metro Manila Summer Film Festival. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Metro Manila Summer Film Festival[edit]

2020 Metro Manila Summer Film Festival (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 planned annual film festival was supposed to be in early 2020 but COVID-19 pandemic cancelled that year's event that did not hold completely and suggesting to merge it to Metro Manila Summer Film Festival. ApprenticeWiki work 03:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, WP:NTEMP applies, cancellation does not mean that the supposed 2020 edition isn't notable, which reached a stage where the entry films were already made known to the public. However the film festival has yet to hold a successful inaugural edition. Merge without any prejudice of turning the cancelled 2020 edition back into a standalone article once an inaugural edition is successfully held.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think it would be suffice to just say it in the article that it was cancelled or postponed due to the pandemic. Either way, it has sufficient references and sources of material such as list of films and other details which can provide useful knowledge and data to the reader. It does not violate any Wiki rules. At some time too, consistency of entries would be needed. It would just be a tad bit different than other MMFF editions with lesser categories and sections. --Likhasik (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. To be fair, we do have a standalone article about the 2020 Cannes Film Festival, even though it never officially happened either — but Cannes is a long-established film festival which did release a slate of films that were allowed to brand themselves as official selections of Cannes, and it did stage an outdoor screening series of some of the program on the Croisette later in the year, so there's some real context for how that cancelled event could keep notability anyway. And also to be fair, this article was first created before the event was cancelled. But I'm not seeing a compelling reason why this one should be seen as independently notable enough to keep its own separate article permanently, especially since the overview article about the festival as a whole is a short and minimally sourced stub that could use some expansion anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Metro Manila Summer Film Festival per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Metro Manila Summer Film Festival per Hariboneagle927 and Bearcat. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:38, 17 April 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 concur with User:Bungle's disapproval of the nomination being relisted by the original nominator; this is not appropriate and a WP:MINNOW is hereby issued. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Duet[edit]

Can You Duet (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'm self-deprodding for a broader look at the sourcing here. In the article's current state, all but one of the sources is from CMT, the network that aired the show. My attempts to dig deeper for sources were met with very little:

  1. This is an article from Billboard about the show's second season, and is the only good quality third-party coverage I could find.
  2. This Billboard article also mentions the show, but only dedicates about a paragraph or so about it in the greater context of "music based reality shows".
  3. This is a press release announcing the show's host.
  4. This is an article from Music Row which documents the Season 2 winner Steel Magnolia signing a record contract. However, it's more about the duo itself and only mentions the show in passing.
  5. This is a press release that's more about Naomi Judd than about the show.
  6. Reality TV World does not appear to be an RS, as I see no credits for editors.
  7. Futon Critic is just reprinting a CMT press release.
  8. This is a listicle from The Boot that mostly quote-mines articles about some of the finalists.
  9. This is a reprint of a People article stating that one of the hosts later married one of the contestants.

Everything else I found was just articles about people who were on the show, such as this article on Joey + Rory that mentions their placing third as just one of the many footnotes in their easily WP:NMUSIC-passing career.

Google News doesn't turn up any results whatsoever for "Can You Duet" + "Lance Smith". I even checked The Tennesseean on Newspapers.com and got nothing but TV listings and reprints of press releases. The fact that not even the Nashville newspaper gave a rat's ass about a country music TV show indicates that it just wasn't worth writing about.

In short, it seems that coverage of the show is nowhere to be seen; even if several of the acts it produced happened to be notable, WP:NOTINHERITED is in play. If anything, artists like Joey + Rory and Steel Magnolia seem to pass WP:NMUSIC in spite of their being finalists on the show. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There were several fairly notable acts to come from the show and it ran for 2 seasons on the prominent TV station, so I don't see why it wouldn't be notable enough to keep. Maybe it needs a few more sources added, but deletion? Nah. CloversMallRat (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CloversMallRat: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The acts that placed on it would still be notable even if the show didn't exist. And what sources do you want me to add? The ones that don't exist, or the ones that aren't even about the show? I just proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are no sources for this show. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Variety reporting on the show being renewed considered sufficient coverage? It seems pretty routine/press-release-y to me. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal, but Variety probably pushes it over the edge – my general view is: if it makes it into Variety or THR (or even Deadline), then it is likely notable enough to cover in Wikipedia. I would certainly add Sammi Brie's references to the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note here that TelevisionWeek was a publication of comparable notability in its time (I recently revived its Wikipedia article after PROD in 2015; the Internet Archive has almost every issue in its 27-year run). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the current article relies way too much on Primary sources. But adding in Sammi Brie's sources, with maybe a few that TenPoundHammer lists above (esp. #2), and it probably just barely clears WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammi Brie: @IJBall: good work, both of you. If one of you wants to add those, I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd let this AfD play out. Even with these refs, this is a marginal case. There may be some "weak delete" votes on this. (And, note, I'm not voting, just commenting – this is borderline enough that I don't have a strong feeling: you can argue this one either way, as "significant coverage" is questionable here.) Best to let the AfD process go to completion, to come to a consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the coverage already dismissed is actually reasonable (e.g., the Billboard piece); Billboard covered it more than once ([29]) and there are other sources in addition ([30], [31], [32]). Chubbles (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chubbles: I think only the American Songwriter coverage is valid. Idolator doesn't seem to be a reliable source, and either way, it's just an arbitrary ranking on a listicle. The Hollywood Reporter source is just a reprint of a press release. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess our mileages vary as to the level of skepticism we need to have about the journalistic integrity of the trade papers here. Regardless, WP:CORP is not the standard of notability for this article, and the amount now uncovered collectively clears anything I'd expect from a GNG challenge. Chubbles (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chubbles: Press releases are still primary sources and not a factor of notability. And I still see no reason to believe that "Idolator" is a reputable source, especially because they admit to a "partnership deal" which means that all of their content is promotional in nature and therefore also a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Idolator's contact page says that they advertise and actively court advertising partnerships, which most websites (and newspapers and magazines) do. That in itself doesn't indicate they are a promotion-only website. I do see that they don't have a description of an editorial team that states much in the way of journalistic independence, and a casual look through their album reviews does reveal to me that they are pretty relentlessly positive about everything they cover. I'm willing to grant it may not be a terribly valuable source; however, losing it doesn't make or break the GNG case here. Chubbles (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis needed on the sources provided by Chubbles and Sammi Brie
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @TenPoundHammer: Just a courtesy notice, but it's generally not appropriate for someone involved to relist an afd as their decision could be biased by their participation. In this case you're the nominator, so you relisting is a little curious and could be seen as a way to avoid a "keep" outcome, but still it's typical to let another uninvolved editor make that decision. You also forgot to comment out the afd on the original dated discussion page, so I have done that. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I relisted because I wanted to see further analysis of the sources brought up, and in ten days, no one has seen fit to say anything either way. If this closes as keep, then I don't mind. I just don't want it to close as "no consensus" because everyone just clammed up. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is, as the nominator, that is not for you to decide whether it is relisted or closed. This is true for any editor who !votes or contributes to the discussion but more-so if the editor initiated it. I am not saying a relist is inappropriate (I would have relisted it) but it should be done by someone who isn't involved, because a relist could be seen as a way, in some scenarios, to avoid a particular outcome (especially as both !votes so far are contrary to your own position). Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 April 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_April_14&oldid=1084089576"