Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 09 September 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Keep given substantial work being done on the article since the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathe Perez

[edit]
Kathe Perez (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:ACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to take into account recent work done on this article. Also, she doesn't appear to be an academic so I don't think that standard of notability applies here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that we're unable to verify claims to notability Star Mississippi 01:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova) (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 was deleted after discussion, on December 25 2018. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova)). It appears to have been reinstated without discussion by User:Олег Черкасский in January 2020 on the basis of an alleged mention in a Russian newspaper (not cited) (see Talk page). This user was the sole defender of the article during the original AfD discussion. At some point, the record of the deletion was falsified on the talk page so that the link to the deletion referred to WP:articles for deletion/Example instead of to the true deletion discussion. I have corrected this. The article should be deleted immediately I think on grounds of the previous deletion, the unacceptable behaviour of User:Олег Черкасский, and of WP:NOTABLE and WP:PROMOTION. Smerus (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And btw the pictures by this artist should be removed from WikiMedia - they are simply self-publicity. I have started this.--Smerus (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We should not delete it solely on the basis of the behaviour of its main author. The talk page comment that is referred to is:
Kultura newspaper - the main newspaper about culture in Russia. An article in this newspaper is proof of the person's significance. Aida's works are in several museums in Russia. This is enough for a Wikipedia article.
This is presumably the first reference in the 'Additional sources' section, where there is a link to images of the newspaper (not copied here as it may be a copyvio). This newspaper is Kultura, the article is on page 14 and looks like a review of an exhibition. This is a good source, but is not sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. It is difficult to assess the other sources without a knowledge of the reliability and significance of Russian sources. It would help if links were provided to English or Russian Wikipedia articles on the cited newspapers and websites.
If it can be clearly established that her work is in the permanent collections of the Pushkin Museum and the Odesa Museum of Western and Eastern Art then I think this would be sufficient to keep the article per WP:ARTIST.
The pictures should not be deleted from Commons while they are in use in . Verbcatcher (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find these 'weak keep' reponses rather eccentirc, in view of the fact that the page was already deleted and has been reinstated against WP rules. In the circumstances it could in fact be eligible for a speedy delete (WP:G4).--Smerus (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: WP:G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies of a deleted page. I don't have access to the deleted page so I cannot assess whether this applies. I was assessing the article in its current state. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cf by the way the disucssion at the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Dolgorukova. The creator of both these articles has now been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing.--Smerus (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 3 September 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, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:TNT. I have given this article a great deal of thought, and think it is best to delete it. It was created as a promotional article by a blocked COI/UPE editor, and contains unverifiable and/or dubious claims. I went through the sourcing, slowly translating items. In addition to the lack of key biographic material (such as birthdate per WomenArtistUpdates), it appears that there are inaccuracies in the "museum collections". One seems to be simply a gift by the artist (not works curated into a collection), while another was a long exhibition (and not a permanent collection), most could not be verified at all (even using multiple variations on her name.) What is clear that she is a Russian painter. Notability may be there, but in its current state the article contains what is either misinformation or poorly translated text (AGF), therefore does not have the verifiability, reliability and quality that the encyclopedia strives for. It seems beyond fixing (even after much trimming and pruning), and therefore would be better to blow it up and start over. If she is truly notable, an unconnected editor will recreate it in time. The policy on this is WP:DEL-REASON: "Reasons for deletion include... 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Similarly, WP:ATD states that "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion." Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TNT. The fixes have not worked. It still fails GNG and WP:HEY. I also note that having one documented single work of art in one major art museum is not sufficient to pass WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 16 September 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrangler Lake

[edit]
Wrangler Lake (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)

Lacks significant coverage to establish notability under GEOLAND or GNG. The only sources that give anything more than a passing mention are Yellowstone up close and personal (a series of photos on a personal website with no description other than the location) and Hiking Yellowstone National Park which mentions it in the context of a nearby hike with little to no coverage of the lake itself. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It gets a mention in [1] an [2] as well as some hiking trails and maps. It also gets a mention in [3] which says of it Wrangler Lake. Compared to the park's main lake, it's a speck on the map.. This book tells us elk graze there [4]. This one has a bit more claim to coverage than some we have seen, but at this stage it is hard to say this meets WP:SIGCOV because the lake is largely referred to as a landmark, and the articles are not specifically about the lake. Having said that, this one deserves a bit of extra consideration. Nevertheless the current page is a bit of a disaster. It is literally one line long, telling the reader absolutely nothing. WP:TNT would not go amiss. Anyone could recreate the page when there is something to say. However, I will reserve my !vote until I am sure that no encylopaedic article is possible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my comment, this site seems to suggest it is a volcanic eruption site [5], and also links to this article, which has nothing on that. However my searches for any WP:RS about such an eruption have failed. If it has been studied, then that would be significant, but I am still finding no sources to that effect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have looked but I cannot find significant coverage per WP:GEOLAND such that an encylopaedic article could be written about this lake. It doesn't even get a mention in Yellowstone guides I looked at, beyond a name on a map or as a hiking destination. It is, I am reasonably certain, a volcanic maar, but not a notable one. I cannot find any evidence it has been of specific or significant interest. Our page is linked from the web at [6] but all our page says is that it is a lake in Yellowstone. The fact of the link does the wikipedia project a disservice. I am aware that simply being a stub is not a reason to delete a page, but on the question as to whether this page could ever contain enough material to be more than a stub is answered "no, not at this time." It would be worth a mention in an article (unwritten at this time) on lakes of Yellowstone, could be mentioned in Maar (but would need a WP:RS) or elsewhere but there is not significant coverage for this article. The only popular fiction reference I found singled it out particularly because it is not significant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A named natural feature in a protected area, passes WP:GEOLAND. I started work on the article. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of lakes of Wyoming, to which I have added this lake. Per GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. ... The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." At this point, there isn't enough info to justify a standalone article IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of the 600 lakes found in Yellowstone National Park 150 are named lakes - and this is one of the named lakes. I want to err on the side of keeping lakes that are named per WP:GEOLAND. There are references about the lake and the "Wrangler Lake Trail". I believe it is better for us to keep an article about the lake based on our guideline. Bruxton (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND on the basis that (a) it's named, and (b) we have something about it beyond a name on a map. It doesn't have to pass GNG. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect "Wrangler Lake: Fishless" is not legitimate content. Even with a relaxation of GNG for a lake, there is not adequate information for an article whatsoever – this 20-acre pond is not a notable place, and being within a national park does not change that. Reywas92Talk 20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Definitions of lake vs pond do vary. But 20 acres would likely exceed the minimum requirements for a lake. Minnesota says ten acres. Wisconsin has no size requirement. Some experts say minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres). Also the reference for the lake being "fishless" does not contribute to the lake's notability but it is likely useful information. I do not understand how the project is improved with the deletion of a named natural feature in a protected park. But that is why we are here. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for removing it! The encyclopedia is likely better with this lake article than without it. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. (emphasis mine). This does not say that having info beyond stats makes it notable, just that notability is "often" found. Might we benefit from a "List of lakes in Yellowstone National Park" or redirect to List of lakes of Wyoming? That we know it has no fish but is next to a hiking path hardly screams "notable". -Indy beetle (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than adequate sources provided: 1) Already applied, we have a four page book chapter directly detailing the lake and the hike leading to it. It's a schlepp, according to hiking expert Bill Schneider, who has written 40 books on such subjects. 2) Also applied this helpful fishing book by another content expert helps potential fisherfolk from wasting their 10.3 miles hiking to a fishless lake. 3) Also also already applied we see that the National Park service has catalogged their lake, and the trail leading to it. Can we agree this at least brings us past WP:V? But we don't have to be satisfied with just these unquestionably reliable sources. 4) This reliable atlas gives us two maps and this book gives us a map relating the maps to waterfalls nearby further defining the subject cartographically. 5) This reliable source directly details the hike to and from. This connected source, nonetheless is a reliable source and provides real-time updates on travel conditions (last update today). Put that together with a half dozen (not RS) online camping, trail and hiking guides ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and this is certainly a verified destination and can be sufficiently sourced to meet GEOLAND with just the material presented in this process. Way more will be found in offline travel guides and books about the park's history, geography, and geology. If Wikipedia is a gazetteer, then such verifiable places will certainly acquire even better sources eventually. BusterD (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to take into account recent work done on this article since nomination. But this AFD discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 September 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 Delhi–Fazilka line. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julana railway station

[edit]
Julana railway station (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 train station. Does not meet GNG and couldn't find anything from a BEFORE search. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Marxist Organisation

[edit]
Egyptian Marxist Organisation (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)

Concern raised by Nbiver on talk page, regarding veracity of the info in article. Googling a bit, I also fail to encounter additional sources confirming the existence of the group. I find it plausible that Ismael might have conflated the name of the Egyptian Communist Organization, and that he might have applied the label 'Maoist' pragmatically (notably, there were expressions of 'Maoism' outside China well before the Sino-Soviet split, such as in the Telangana armed struggle in India). But anyhow the current sourcing doesn't back retaining a separate article under this name Soman (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nbiver flagged on the talk page of the article that the group would not be mentioned in Ginat (2011) --Soman (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: Since you are speculating that the source may have plagiarized this Wikipedia article (created by you in 2007), you can see another source from 2004 which notes "The Egyptian Marxist Organization continued to expound Maoism, while the Party of Socialist Revolution (Hizb al-Thawra al-Ishtarakiyah) and the Arab Communist Party (al-Hizb al-Shiou'ie al-Arabi) were formed in August, 1964".
There is also a source from 2007. We can agree that the party surely existed.
Overall, I think delete. The party existed but it probably fails WP:GNG. Azuredivay (talk) 08:51, 15 September 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! 23:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar Vasanth

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

Fails GNG (Note, I am completed an AFD requested by 2409:4073:4D1F:B92:0:0:938A:5A04 and have no opinion on the merits.) MB 22:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is partially blocked. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 12 September 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! 08:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andraes Norford

[edit]
Andraes Norford (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/kittitian-andreas-norford-gets-30-years-in-prison-for-c-melbourne-francis-murder
  2. ^ https://www.bviplatinum.com/news.php?articleId=33506
  3. ^ https://bvinews.com/execution-style-murder-norford-allegedly-used-post-irma-prison-break-to-kill-victim/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 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! 23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamin Jagne

[edit]
Lamin Jagne (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)

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. This footballer made four total appearances for Morecambe FC in 2018. He attracted no coverage beyond passing mentions and routine announcements.

Since leaving Morecambe over two years ago, he has represented the under-21s team of Macclesfield FC (9th tier) and played briefly with Atherton Laburnum Rovers, (10th tier) in a minor competition.

Contested PROD with the reasoning "played for fully pro Morecambe in League two which is considered best fourth tier worldwide and has ongoing career". MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:45, 10 September 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! 23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of swimming pools in Lithuania

[edit]
List of swimming pools in Lithuania (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)

May not meet general notability guidelines. SparklingSnail (talk) 21:45, 10 September 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 The Rasmus discography. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3rd (The Rasmus EP)

[edit]
3rd (The Rasmus EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since at least 2019, couldn't find any coverage myself. Redirect to The Rasmus discography. QuietHere (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st (The Rasmus EP) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd (The Rasmus EP) QuietHere (talk) 21:32, 10 September 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 The Rasmus discography. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd (The Rasmus EP)

[edit]
2nd (The Rasmus EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since at least last year, couldn't find any coverage myself. Redirect to The Rasmus discography. QuietHere (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st (The Rasmus EP) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd (The Rasmus EP) QuietHere (talk) 21:32, 10 September 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 The Rasmus discography. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st (The Rasmus EP)

[edit]
1st (The Rasmus EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since at least last year, couldn't find any coverage myself. Redirect to The Rasmus discography. QuietHere (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd (The Rasmus EP) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd (The Rasmus EP) QuietHere (talk) 21:31, 10 September 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! 23:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anabella Lenzu

[edit]
Anabella Lenzu (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 person appears to fail WP:NBIO, as there is no independent reliable coverage of this person in the Google search results. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 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. It's unclear whether there's a consensus for a move target, but that can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Holloway

[edit]
Robert Holloway (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)

Robert Holloway

This biography of a living person has verifiability problems as well as notability problems. As to verifiability, under the current cricket notability guideline, there is no statement that this individual played at the international level. There is also no mention of anything that resembles significant coverage to establish general notability. But the more basic problem is that this stub doesn't have any references. If references to reliable sources are added within seven days, they will still have to provide significant coverage.

There probably should have been a proposed deletion, but we might as well publish this. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formally changing my opinion to keep based on expansion. There are more than enough passing references with extra bits of detail in some to, in my view, meet WP:BASIC requirements. I'm not done yet, but the best sources are to come as it happens. These are almost all from The Press because that publication has been digitised. The Otago Daily Times stops it digitised content in 1950 - before Holloway played. Under WP:NEXIST I am absolutely certain that there will be more articles with more in depth content - including about his club play in Dunedin. If you consider the sorts of sourcing that was found earlier this year in the cases of Alfred Hollings or William Priest, for example (or Clifford Gibbs), I am totally confident that if we were to be able to access the paper archive of the ODT that we'd be able to find these - I honestly have no doubt whatsoever, but it's a bit far for me to pop to Dunedin just now. I appreciate that there isn't one book length source here, but that's not required - there's enough in my view to meet BASIC. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd like to know more about the match he played against Fiji[14] (which isn't even mentioned at Fiji national cricket team). StAnselm (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paper's Past has reports of each match on both the 61-62 and 67-68 tours. There's not a huge amount we could add here, but there's some interesting coverage in general terms. The 67-68 match was apparently on a bit of a batting minefield (he made 4 and 9 as Southland failed to chase down 118...) Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 16 September 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! 23:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for a Wales Olympic Team

[edit]
Campaign for a Wales Olympic Team (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 is absolutely no evidence of any campaign or movement specifically for a Wales Olympic team, apart from the one isolated suggestion by the deputy leader of Plaid Cymru. Wikipedia isn't the place to start a campaign, however much we'd love to see Wales getting more recognition in Olympic sport. Sionk (talk) 19:29, 10 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film)

[edit]
Lucifer (2019 Nigerian 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)

Fails WP:NF. Little to no prose. No primary sources. Not notable. Tree Critter (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is a stub. It received some awards in its home country. It may not be an internationally recognized film, but if it has local awards, there are indications of national notability. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above it received some awards in its home country. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per WP:NFO. The film received a notable award BON. Insight 3 (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lack of prose (WP:STUBS are okay) and no primary sources are not reasons to delete. What matters is what sources WP:NEXIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the fundemental criteria - WP:NFP and WP:NFSOURCES. No independent reliable sources, neither here or on the web. Award citations also only have passing mentions, "[Category] - Lucifer". Beside, the award was NOT for the film itself (or any "aspect of filmmaking" per WP:NFO#3), its two wins are for acting. Do you create an article for "Best Kiss in a Movie" winner too? If BON award alone is your criteria for inclusion, then all films that has won a BON award can be created even if they fail WP:GNG. Additionally, the #3 of WP:NFO states (in the note): This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. Here, #1 is not satisfied. It also says: In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. For this film, a "search for independent, third-party reliable sources is unsuccessful", also meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film (wins are not for the film). --2409:4073:4E1A:23FC:3000:F0F5:8034:A441 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When stating For this film, a "search for independent, third-party reliable sources is unsuccessful", are you able to confirm this dearth of sources in the Yoruba language of the film? I agree with some points, but this is a very strong claim. One could reasonably assume that buzz developed around said performances in discussions of the film prior to the award nominations being made. Foreign content is always tricky, and I have no !vote right now since it is hard to confirm one way or the other. -2pou (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to ask why "acting" is not part of "filmmaking"? Actors don't act on their own, they are directed to act in a certain way according to a specific script. Insight 3 (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Search for sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 10 September 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! 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Lanaway

[edit]
John Lanaway (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 working man. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 18:50, 10 September 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! 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Quinn (footballer, born 1994)

[edit]
James Quinn (footballer, born 1994) (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 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! 23:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Riley

[edit]
Jermaine Riley (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 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! 23:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Felix

[edit]
James Felix (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 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! 23:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Charters

[edit]
Keith Charters (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 not convinced this author has much of a claim to notability. I can't find any reviews or coverage of his four books or any articles on him personally. His novels are essentially self-published, since Charters founded the company that printed them.

The only independent coverage of any type I can find is an article mentioning in passing that Charters reported another publishing company to the police over a fraud allegation.

Happy to reassess if further coverage is unearthed but at the moment I can't find anything, not even the baseline coverage in Kirkus or Publishers Weekly. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there are redirect pages from 3 of his books to his page. I don't know if those are cleaned up by some process if this page is deleted. Lamona (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made those redirects. It was all a bit of a walled garden. I'll take it to redirects for discussion (presumably?) if the Keith Charters article is deleted. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree with the comments above and there does not seem to be anything like the sort of coverage that would suggest that the subject is an author with the level of notability that would be expected for an article.Dunarc (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postanalytic philosophy

[edit]
Postanalytic philosophy (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 school of thought does not appear to exist. The article has existed for 17 years and still we have seen no sources explicitly about a topic that we could summarize in a Wikipedia article. Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that Ben said matches my understanding and over many years, no one has come forth to offer contrary sources. JustinBlank (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has many sources in GSCholar, showing it does exist. Did we do a BEFORE? Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's a better reason than anything in the actual article. The few search results I turned up, however, appeared to very possibility be using it more neutrally with a hyphen. That would make it more like, say, post-Kantian philosophy, which is a meaningful description, but does not denote an actual movement as does, e.g., German Idealism. (The former, accordingly, does not have a Wikipedia page; the latter does.)
    Does anyone care about this enough to actually look through those search results to see if there are any supporting citations that could be added to meet the relevant notability criteria for the article? PatrickJWelsh (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Scholar turns up many uses of the term "postanalytic philosophy" but is there an actual school of thought here—a topic—that a Wikipedia page could summarize, or just an adjective that people apply to a variety of different things? A cursory look at search results suggested to me that people are largely coining the word anew each time, not describing a common topic. Someone more familiar with the field might know better, though. If I could see a distinct topic here, then I would support keeping the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking through Google Scholar, I managed to find a number of books that cover this topic [15][16][17][18], all of which use the term in the same way. Specifically, they use it to refer to a group of philosophers who started within the analytic tradition but came to question and deconstruct some of its central assumptions. Philosophers particularly associated with the movement seem to be Rorty, Davidson, Putnam, Quine, McDowell and Wittgenstein. There are also papers covering the idea, e.g. [19]. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that this article is to be retained, is there a way to transpose this discussion into the Talk page so that it is preserved for future editors?
    Because the page needs some work, and the GoogleScholar references might be useful. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After a deletion discussion is closed, {{Old XfD multi}} is generally added to the top of the talk page which links to the AfD discussion. I can also add {{refideas}} to the talk page with the sources I listed if that's useful. As to transposing the whole discussion, I'm not sure. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good. I just want future editors to know that the page, in its present state, was so badly sourced as to have been nominated for deletion—and also to have some suggested resources for fixing it. PatrickJWelsh (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Alduin2000. I am close to being convinced by what you said that there might actually be a distinct, definable topic here that could be summarized, not merely an adjective that hazily applies to a congeries of unrelated writings. Can you find a source with an authoritative definition of the topic? Your definition sounds really good, but is that really established in the literature? I looked at "Butler and Postanalytic Philosophy". It seems to quasi-define postanalytic philosophy as "a conception of philosophy as an amphibious humanistic discipline, at home with both the natural sciences and cultural theory", followed by an extremely vague and unclear quotation. I can't tell what that means, but it seems very different from the definition that you inferred. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi BenKovitz, the "Butler and Postanalytic Philosophy" paper states that these thinkers are "internal critics of the Anglo-American analytic tradition" (emphasis added) which I take to be broadly equivalent to the definition I provided. The paper then goes onto define some positive characteristics of some postanalytic philosophers (e.g. the quote you give). However, according to the paper "postanalytic thinkers are not clustered together because each of them contributes to a fully defined and articulated philosophical tradition" so I think these positive characteristics are not as relevant as a definition. Even more explicitly, the Postanalytic and Metacontinental book says that postanalytic is defined "by what it stands against" rather than what it stands for. I think a good definition is given in that book: "The term 'postanalytic' has been used to characterize the work of thinkers who, having started out in the mainstream analytic tradition, came to place in question some of its central presuppositions" (the book also later goes on to characterise postanalytic philosophy as a "deconstructive approach"). If you would like quotes from the other books which give a similar understanding of the term I can provide them if that's useful. Alduin2000 (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is looking good! Wow, I had read that whole paragraph from the Giladi paper but thought the point might have been that "postanalytic philosophy" is not really a thing, though that was far from clear. Now I think I see, though: postanalytic philosophy is a hodgepodge collection of thought by philosophers who started in analytic philosophy and turned against it, for a variety of reasons—i.e. internal critics of analytic philosophy. Is that about right? I can see how that could be a topic that Wikipedia could summarize. Could you go ahead and edit the article itself to include an appropriate definition, and maybe include some specific propositions about which postanalytic philosophy differs from analytic philosophy? Or, if they differ regarding methods or goals (or something else) rather than propositions, could you spell out the specific methods or goals (or something else)? Then our debate here will not just save from deletion a vague article that seems to have no topic, but make the article clearly have a topic. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what led you to infer that Wittgenstein is associated with postanalytic philosophy? I understand Wittgenstein to be one of the founders of analytic philosophy. I ask this only to verify whether there is an actual school of thought here, or just people using the word "postanalytic" to designate a variety of different, perhaps contradictory things—i.e. to see whether there is an actual topic here. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, this is what the sources I read said. To be clear, they seem to be talking about the later Wittgenstein rather than early Wittgenstein. Alduin2000 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be fair, then, to say that "postanalytic" Wittgenstein is not the same as "postanalytic philosophy" in the sense used when calling Richard Rorty "postanalytic"? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that later Wittgenstein is postanalytic in the same way. I think I read in one of the sources that postanalytic philosophy has some connection to ordinary language philosophy which obviously was opposed to at least some of the earlier philosophers in the analytic tradition and is very much associated with the later Wittgenstein. In this sense, Wittgenstein is a figure that starts to question the analytic tradition from within. Sure, there are differences, Rorty and Putnam seem to be associated with postanalytic philosophy through their neopragmatism rather than any commitment to ordinary language philosophy. I think Quine was actually opposed to ordinary language philosophy; his inclusion is due to his criticisms of logical positivism, particularly the analytic-synthetic distinction. This just highlights that postanalytic is really best defined by what it's opposed to than some kind of unified positive project. Exactly as you say above is my understanding:postanalytic philosophy is a hodgepodge collection of thought by philosophers who started in analytic philosophy and turned against it, for a variety of reasons. I am not an expert on this though, so I don't know how much I can spell this out in the article, although I'll add the Postanalytic and Metacontinental definition at least. [EDIT 16:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC): I have updated the lead using the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to provide the definition instead.] Alduin2000 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Article has no sources" is not a valid reason for deletion of non-BLPs; being unsourced for a long time does not mean that the subject does not exist. Also per Alduin's verification of the concept's existence. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like there is a misunderstanding: "Article has no sources" is not the reason for nominating Postanalytic philosophy for deletion. It's the apparent lack of a topic to summarize in an article. Please see my reply to User:Alduin2000 above. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:02, 12 September 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. Withdrawn nomination. Nominator (I.e. me) misunderstood NACADEMIC, and also forgot to check Google scholar. Trouts would be appropriate. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donhee Ham

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

Seems to fail WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:GNG. A BEFORE search turned up a few published papers, and some passing mentions (in non-independent sources) as having worked on a single study involving rat neurons and "copy and paste" of neural connections. Everything else was non-independent, databases, or Wikipedia mirrors. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SJSJB: Pinging the most significant contributor to this article, besides the original author. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep WP:SK3, miserable failure of WP:BEFORE. Named full professor at Harvard is an easy pass of WP:PROF#C5, and his citation counts on Google Scholar [20] of 924, 648, 479, 426, etc., are easily enough for #C1, as one would expect from someone with a named professorship at Harvard. Given that the named professorship at Harvard is almost the only thing the lead of this very short article says about the subject, it is hard to understand how the nominator can claim to have evaluated this article against WP:PROF and overlooked it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 10 September 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! 23:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Poplak

[edit]
Dudley Poplak (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)

Being an interior decorator does not make one notable. If there's more to him than this, please provide the evidence. We have no SSGs for interior decorators-- for a reason. A loose necktie (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He does seem to have been a notable interior designer, however. He designed multiple home interiors for the royal family, among others, and was noted repeatedly in the news for his work. Here's some examples:
Watson, Peter (May 18, 1981). "Lady Diana's decorator". The Times. No. 60930. p. 12. Retrieved September 10, 2022 – via Gale.
"Dudley Poplak". The Times. March 29, 2005. Retrieved September 10, 2022.
"Charles' letter written days after separating from Diana to be auctioned". Belfast Telegraph. June 14, 2017. Retrieved September 10, 2022.
Deitz, Paula (December 29, 1988). "One Stately Home in England Belongs to the U.S." The New York Times. Retrieved September 10, 2022.
News database access is useful though, since many of the articles are from the 80's or otherwise decades ago and a lot of UK publications don't have public access. The Wikipedia LIbrary is good to have in order to access a lot of that. SilverserenC 17:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Silver seren has demonstrated that Poplak received reliable independent coverage going back nearly 25 years. I think GNG is demonstrated. I have found that generally someone who has an obituary in The Times, a paper of record in the UK, very likely has previous coverage which would make them meet GNG guidelines. Thriley (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep - per WP:HEY if and only if the sources found are added to the stub. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 16 September 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. G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Dopenguins) in violation of ban or block. DanCherek (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lorenzelli

[edit]
Peter Lorenzelli (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 part of a recent spate of articles on subjects such as this one which have the same formatting issues and, more importantly, the same notability issues. IMdB is not a suitable source for proving notability; genome.ch.bbc.co.uk is not your standard news source for this sort of thing either. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 15:55, 10 September 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 deleted as G5, salted. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 09:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Rutland

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
John Rutland (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)

References that consist of dead links, and links that go to pages at TV Guide.com that don't say more than his name. As a newly written article, these are indicative of the quality of the content as well as the notability of the subject, with both seem to be lacking. A loose necktie (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an instance in which a prolific character actor is nominated for deletion because their career was mostly finished before the advent of the internet, so a google search will not pick up substantial coverage of him. It is true that the article is very badly written, but that will be easy to clean up if someone does the research: If anyone has access to newspaper databases from the 1950s to the 1970s, you will see reviews of him and feature articles. He starred in the film Calculated Risk, but he mostly played supporting character roles over his long career. He also appeared in the West End in the musical version of Canterbury Tales, https://ovrtur.com/production/2880047/credits (1968-1969) and was Lord Brockhurst in The Boy Friend (1953-1954). -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 10 September 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 procedural keep. Main reason for closing as an NAC is that it's technically malformed, but the in-rationale and in-nomination insults from the nom and overall uncivil dialogue is quickly making this nomination a no go.

Neutral otherwise; no prejudice to a new and properly-formatted nomination; the nominator is advised to read WP:AFDHOWTO and not title it 'insert garbage here'. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 18:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of *insert garbage*

[edit]

Comparison of browser engines (CSS support) Comparison of browser engines (graphics support) Comparison of browser engines (HTML support) Comparison of browser engines (typography support) Comparison of JavaScript engines (DOM support) Comparison of layout engines (XHTML 1.1) Comparison of layout engines (XHTML) Comparison of layout engines (XML) I proposed all of them for deletion and nobody rejected it for a week. Then a smol brain came along and unproded them with the reason that they were nominated before aeons before like in 2006. Anyway. I propose we finally delete this trash. — Updatepedia (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep: no valid/policy-based rationale for deletion. Calling an admin who was just doing their job of applying WP policy a "smol brain" is not a great move on the nom's part, either. No prejudice against another, civil and policy-based nomination. BilletsMauves€500 16:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I already wrote my rationale for each single article in the PROD for the specific page. You should read them. That's why I'm angry I have to explain everything again to people who seem to have no idea about anything technical. — Updatepedia (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Angry or not, I'm afraid you will have to copy your rationales to the AfD page anyways, if you want these articles deleted. By the way, bundling these AfDs the proper way might have been a more sensible option (see WP:MULTIAFD). BilletsMauves€500 16:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm supposed to read WP:* before I'm allowed to do anything at all, big brain? Updatepedia (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, AfDs are quite procedure-heavy, and discussions have to be centered on whether or not the nominated article(s) is/are able to meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines. So yeah, consider reading pages like this one, which explains Wikipedia's deletion policy, before proposing some articles for deletion or bringing them to AfD. Another thing: making comments on other editors' brain sizes can be considered uncivil. It would be good if you could reword your last answer, as well as your nomination while we are at it. Thanks in advance. BilletsMauves€500 17:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all right, medium brain, I'm gonna rewrite the reasons here:
    - EdgeHTML, KHTML, MSHTML (Trident), Tasman, Presto are all dead engines, nobody needs a feature comparison of those.
    - Blink (highest marketshare) isn't even being compared in most of the tables because the articles are so old and have never been improved
    - the articles haven't been significantly improved since their creation
    - I already made a table of relevant image formats in Comparison of browser engines to supercede the article.
    - raw outdated data (example font-feature-settings is working in Safari according to caniuse.com, yet it is marked as no for Webkit in Comparison_of_browser_engines_(typography_support). This is not the only outdated entry, just one I randomly picked. All of the data is outdated and mostly wrong.)
    - features from old working drafts that never became standards
    - relevant features are implemented in all engines (webkit, blink, gecko), so you're just comparing yes to yes which is pointless Updatepedia (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:06, 10 September 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. Closing early as keep given nominator withdrew after being provided with evidence of sourcing. No discussion is ongoing per WP:WITHDRAWAL. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Uspenski

[edit]
Andrej Uspenski (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)

BLP without any independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 10 September 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Consensus is difficult to determine here because of likely sockpuppetry, and too much of the commentary being focused on the nominator and/or commenters rather than whether or not this subject is notable. A new discussion focusing on the subject's actual notability is likely to produce a clearer result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ragy Thomas

[edit]
Ragy Thomas (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 corresponding WP:ANYBIO, spam links like forbes (contributor) or twocircles.net. Passing mentions in WSJ are not independent and not deep enough to counted as reliable independent sources. Obvious WP:Promo, WP:COI 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Timtempleton Imperfect Boy (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why you hate this man? Nomatter No no (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why you socking, it's not allowed? Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr looks like someone's additional "sock" account too. Not a good sign for a AfD debates. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - thanks but no thanks. No socks welcome here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Duplicate vote: 多少 战场 龙 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
  • Comment as the topic didn't receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let's read WP:ANYBIO:

    1. Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. - no such a link. Perhaps, Forbes [21] is the only one worth mentioning in the article, however it tells us a lot about Sprinklr, and it doesn't allow to write an article about the living person.

    2. Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. The article is full of spam websites and blogs like: [22] with 80k views per month, dmnews [23] with 11k views per month; chiefmarketer [24] with 28k views per month, and so on. None of them is reliable. Interviews... I don't count them as they are not appropriate by default. --多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

多少 战场 龙 - Please review Miscellaneous advice in the Guide to deletion, your nomination already counts as a !vote, so I have struck your additional bolded recommendation. Beccaynr (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sure 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - looks like a possible paid job for self promotional content - FOX 52 talk! 08:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOX 52 that what I meant. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Per WP:BASIC, which permits a combination of sources, there appears to be some support for his notability, e.g. New York City Casts a Net to Catch the Next Big Start-Up (NYT, 2016, Thomas quoted as founder and CEO of Sprinklr, with context e.g. "His start-up has raised $125 million in venture funding and is valued at $1 billion"), in addition to a 2016 NYT interview. A 2016 Fortune article similarly frames the development of the company in biographical terms, e.g. "Sprinklr founder and CEO Ragy Thomas's quest to create a "command central"". A 2021 Reuters article includes, e.g. "Sprinklr, which began in 2009 in a spare bedroom in founder and Chief Executive Officer Ragy Thomas's house in New Jersey" and a 2021 Indian Express article includes, "customer experience management firm Sprinklr saw its shares rise 12 per cent, which also catapulted its founder — Kerala-born Ragy Thomas — into the billionaires club." Thomas has also been involved in a controversy related to Sprinklr in India, e.g. 2020 Business Standard, which also mentions, "Non-Resident Keralite Ragy Thomas founded the company and offered his service free, considering the health of his parents and other elderly people in the state." A 2020 News Minute explainer includes, "the US company was founded by tech executive Ragy Thomas, who hails from Kerala. He had worked for several years in the US prior to launching his own venture, Sprinklr". There are many promotional/press release/nonindependent sources to sort through (e.g. this CNN interview notes "(CNN is also a Sprinklr client.)"), but from my view, there has been some independent coverage of Thomas, initially as the founder and CEO of Sprinklr, and then later during the controversy (which seems to clearly not be promotional) that is included in the Sprinklr article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad-faith nomination by a suspicious account. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle I carefully read all the links provided in the article and found that the subject doesn't correspond WP:ANYBIO and maybe falls upon WP:COI. I don't see why this nomination is bad or suspicious. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    多少 战场 龙}, it is bad-faith because you seem to be targeting Timtempleton's articles and suspicious because of the sockpuppet behaviour. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please keep it civil, everyone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Way to feed the socks people. I’ll add some of the additional sources pointed out above when I get a chance. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great - another ip sock for the checkuser team to sort through. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser team is going to have a drawer full of them :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to review sources added in [25]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DatGuyTalkContribs 15:21, 10 September 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! 23:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erjon Dine

[edit]
Erjon Dine (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)

Former footballer that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. No hits in Google News, two passing mentions in ProQuest and very little in DDG.

He is mentioned in an U21 match report in BBC and mentioned once in an article in Panorama but such coverage is not sufficient for an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:08, 10 September 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! 23:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reshma Aur Sultaan

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "AfD it" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:45, 10 September 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 15:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Douglas

[edit]
Mustapha Douglas (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)

Semi-professional footballer (possibly retired) that does not appear to have any significant coverage, therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. I found nothing in Google News, no relevant hits in ProQuest and some trivial mentions in DDG. The best sources that I can find are Modern Ghana and Ghana Soccernet but both of these are trivial match report mentions and there is consensus within the community that such coverage does not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:38, 10 September 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! 23:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Browser Object Model

[edit]
Browser Object Model (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 think this should be merged into the Web API article, specifically the client side section. The term BOM is no longer used anywhere and has never been used officially and Mozilla's documentation lists these objects as Web APIs nowaday. — Updatepedia (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Web APIs are a distinct topic. Mozilla does have a project called 'WebAPI' which is a confusingly named API for replacing native applications on mobile devices with HTML5 based versions. This is also not the same as the Browser Object Model discussed by this article. Despite the claim in the nomination that the term is 'no longer used anywhere', lots of relevant hits turned up on Google Scholar, including some very recent ones. I've added some of these as citations to the article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these people copy Wikipedia into their books, so Wikipedia can quote itself. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Screen Here the window object and the screen object is found in the "Web APIs" section. It is not for mobile APIs but for all web browsers. Definition of Web API according to Mozilla https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API — Updatepedia (talk) 12:59, 10 September 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 15:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gomez (priest)

[edit]
Stephen Gomez (priest) (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 priest. Dependent sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Venkat TL (talk) 10:51, 10 September 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 15:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syahadat Masnawi

[edit]
Syahadat Masnawi (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:SPORTBASIC #5 says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources., which is failed here. Also doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. A Google News search yields only trivial mentions, most of which is at youth level as well. A Singaporean source search yielded a long list of database sources, none of which confer notability per my first sentence above. ProQuest has nothing. Soccerway and GSA both show that he hasn't played a professional game since March 2020 so he doesn't have an 'ongoing professional career', not that that would be enough to keep the article anyway. The only recent mention of him that I can find is in Asia Samachar, which mentions him in passing playing in a semi-pro/amateur league. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:48, 10 September 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 15:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zarni Htet

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

Previously a PROD in 2015. I can't find anything to suggest that Zarni Htet meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I have conducted searches in Burmese and English and found nothing better than this article in Myanmar Digital News, which is nothing more than a quote from the subject with absolutely no independent analysis whatsoever. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:34, 10 September 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Five Fluke Freshmen

[edit]
Michigan Five Fluke Freshmen (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 neologism. I see only trivial mentions of it in news sources. Newspapers.com has only one result for "Five Fluke Freshman". [26] It could be worth mentioning on the five Rep's pages, if sources can be found for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 1966_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections#Michigan (for now) and add a sentence or two of explanatory context there. Should future articles on the history of Michigan elections be created, then a different redirect target might be warranted. There is no doubt these 5 men exist, are notable, were elected, were subsequently defeated, and were given this collective nickname in defeat in an election, but the sources Cullen328 has provided are trivial mentions, not significant coverage and do not demonstrate notability. It doesn't matter if 100 reliable sources mention this nickname decades later, just as it doesn't matter if 1,000 sources clearly state the name of a Nobel Prize winner's mother, father, and pet cat: if sources say little more than "it exists", then the subject does not warrant a stand-alone encyclopedia article (but of course may be mentioned in other articles as warranted). This article exists seemingly only to tickle the trivial fancy of politically-infatuated Wikipedians, and redundantly regurgitate election results. The added content about Nixon is largely tangential; this shouldn't become a WP:COATRACK of miscellaneous 1960s political trivia. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So far, we have opinions to Delete, Keep, Merge and Redirect so relisting to see if a consensus can emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is far more developed and far better referenced than it was when it was nominated for deletion. The comment that the coverage in reliable sources are all trivial mentions is incorrect. As I pointed out above, Nixon in New York devotes 13 sentences to the topic, and the other discussion of the topic is substantive even if briefer. Several of these are written by academics writing about the topic decades later. The Nixon content is not tangential because he personally recruited the then-unknown Donald Riegle to run, supported him in a pre-primary fundraiser, and strongly backed the other four GOP candidates as well. Riegle is a major figure in Michigan political history with 28 years of service in the U.S. House and Senate. So, that content is useful to understanding how and why the 1964 Democratic landslide was reversed by the 1966 Republican landslide. The comment about tickle the trivial fancy of politically-infatuated Wikipedians is an unwarranted ad hominem personal attack on my motivations. I do not specialize in political articles as I am a generalist editor with wide ranging interests. I did grow up in Michigan in the 1950s and 1960s, and so I know a little bit about those days, and have a justified interest. Redirecting is not a good option because neither the 1964 nor the 1966 articles mention this topic, and neither has much prose about the implications or historical significance of these elections. Merging content into the 1964 article would be inappropriate because nobody talked about these five as a group until 1966. Merging content into the 1966 article would create a problem of undue weight since that article surveys nearly 470 races, and this article is about five of them. This article is useful for more deeply understanding the careers of ten notable American politicians and provides a bit of insight into the political skills of an American president, and that is why I support keeping it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a large number of reliable sources mention the name of a Nobel Prize winner's mother and father, then of course, their parent's names will be included in that biography. As for the cat, it is munching on a red herring. Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really care about the neologism, Cullen's sources show that the group (or phenomenon, as you choose to view it) was notable, and received attention from historical sources. I cannot imagine that news sources of the time didn't cover it, either. If there existed a page about the 1964 elections in Michigan, I would likely support that; but the page about the national election cannot cover reasonably cover the material here. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 10 September 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holmby Productions, Inc. v. Vaughn

[edit]
Holmby Productions, Inc. v. Vaughn (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 that demonstrates that this legal case is notable. The two sources are both court transcripts and legal judgments. Nothing to show that the judgement was regarded as notable. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   20:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is intended to show one of the pre-Freeman cases (Freedman v. Maryland) where courts upheld censorship and film licensing laws, despite coming after the 1952 Miracle case (Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson) where the Supreme Court recognized that motion pictures are forms of "speech" and are entitled to First Amendment protection.
  2. We are not supposed to do "original research" nor state our own opinons, but to show the facts, and the reader make their own judgment.
  3. My intent was to show the court's reasoning and why it came to the conclusion it did.
  4. I also wanted to show the appeal. The issue here is, the Supreme Court gave no explanation as to why the case was reversed.
    • Did the court consider the movie was not obscene?
    • Did the court feel that, yes, a reviewing court must also examine the movie to determine if the judgment of obscenity by the board is correct?
    • Did the court consider the licensing scheme either partially or wholly invalid?
    • Was the declaration of the film as "obscene" merely a pretext to ban the film?
    • Was the definition of "obscene" correct and not overbroad (based on the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California, it probably was.)
    The extremely terse statement tells us nothing.
  5. It is meant to show an example where, a lower court could go through a carefully reasoned decision, examine all the relevant decisions, parse them all, and still be told by an apeals court, "Wrong."
  6. It was also intended to provide the entire history of this case. On the Internet, it's in two places, as a Kansas State decision and a federal one. (some reporting sites don't even carry the Supreme Court's decision).
  7. This case isn't precedential, both because it was overturned, and there is no explanation why, so it has little value in being scholarly examined, but was used in later court cases to show that lower courts do not have much guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on obscenity.
  8. If I should have made these comments to better explain why it was included, I could, but I thought I wasn't supposed to.
  9. I think it is a good marker into the past: this is where we were, and how sometimes new media doesn't get recognized as subject to First Amendment protection.
  10. Consider now: it is clearly recognized that video games have First Amendment protection and People who film police are allowed to do so.
  11. Even back then, no one would have expected books and newspapers to have to have permission to be published, yet motion pictures were not given the same protection.
  12. It's clear now, despite the court's decision, requiring someone to submit a film to a government censor before being allowed to publish it, or having to get approval first, was prior restraint.
  13. Someone else has updated the article with at least one point I was unaware of.
  14. It is something we should be aware of, as part of First Amendment history
  15. As to notability, there are more than 1400 hits on Google about this case.

for these reasons, and probably others, I urge that this article be kept.

Thank you,
Paul Robinson



"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand and empathise to a degree with your concerns, but these do not and cannot overide Wikipedia's requirement for multiple independednt and reliable sources discussing the subject. I was unable to find such sources but much material from the US is not visible to us in Europe so that I cannot determine whether there are sources for notability out there. Without such sources, the test for notability will fail. The reference to the 1sr amendment is, of course, only relevant to to the US and not Wikipedia. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   17:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered in this book. It is also covered in this encyclopaedia on jurisprudence and trials. Mentioned in this book. This book too. Cited here. This book also. Discussed in the Harvard Law Review - one of the most prestigious and eminent law journals in the world here. It was also cited in this research publication. Now, I do not have the time to do a full search right now, but I consider it very likely that the decision has been quoted in other decisions and other scholarly research. There is no specific notability guideline to my knowledge for judicial decisions. So to my understanding, there is sufficient significant coverage in independent secondary sources to meet the general notability guideline. There is scope to expand the article and improve it using the sources I have so far discovered. While some sources out there merely cite the decision rather than discuss it at length, common sense (to lawyers and those familiar with reading court cases) dictates this is so. A mere citation in a scholarly work or future precedent can be considered significant. 03:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Amplification of prior comment. Holmby was the recognized case that Kansas' Motion picture licensing law was unconstitutional. 63 other cpurt cases amd legal articles refer to it. Some examples:
    • In a decision of the Supreme Court pf Pennsylvania, of an appeal by a theater manager convicted for showing an 'obscene' film, under a statute which made it a misdemeanor foe "the "exhibition of fixed or moving pictures of a lascivious, sacrilegious, obscene, indecent or immoral nature," that of the words in the statute, all of the words: lascivious, sacrilegious, indecent or immoral were impermissible reasons to ban a film and found unconstitutional in various US Supreme Court decisioms.The Vourt then said,
Since the U.S. Supreme Court does not say what waa reversed, on;y the case as qupted in the article explains that.

Thus I thinl these and other decision s citing it show it deserves inclusion. I think I'll add these points to the article.

"Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."

Thank you.
Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All sources used in the article are primary sources. We'd need either a scholarly journal discussing the case or newspaper articles discussing it. Same reason for not using Hansard for example, it's published by those who dictate it. Above discussion appears to be all original research, so we can't really use that either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, state supreme court cases are inherently notable. GregJackP Boomer! 13:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a state supreme court case that was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, so there is a strong presumption of notability. It has been cited in reliable secondary sources. In addition, there are many newspaper sources from the period that are available through WP:TWL that discuss the case. Although these are not yet in the article, the article is less than a month old. Let’s not be too quick to delete an article that just needs a refimprove tag. John M Baker (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Multimedia College of Fine Arts

[edit]
Creative Multimedia College of Fine Arts (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 for-profit college, edited for-pay. Delphireh (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 10 September 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 Woodward Park (Fresno)#Shakespeare in the Park. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward Shakespeare Festival

[edit]
Woodward Shakespeare 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)

There are a bunch of dead links and then three separate links to the webpage of the organization itself, which is obviously fine for some claims about the organization but doesn't count for notability. Right now there is nothing showing notability. Maybe it can be found, but I didn't find it on review. One proposal is to merge into the Woodward Park (Fresno) article. Thanks Nweil (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 10 September 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 don't see a consensus here except the opinion that these nominations need a larger discussion and that has not been happening in this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton at the 2019 Island Games

[edit]
Badminton at the 2019 Island Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDATABASE and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Badminton at the 2011 Island Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Badminton at the 2013 Island Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Badminton at the 2015 Island Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • comment I don't understand why did you pick badminton, while there are articles about all sports from 2011 (and some from earlier Games). Are you trying to tell us no event at the Island Games deserves an article? Maybe start a discussion about that beforehand? Or why not nominate all of them? Is badminton notable at the 2017 Island Games?

Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of mountains in Utah#Factory Butte (Emery County, Utah). or a subsection as determined editorially. This preserves attribution Star Mississippi 02:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Butte (Emery County, Utah)

[edit]
Factory Butte (Emery County, Utah) (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 significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 04:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. –dlthewave ☎ 04:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of mountains in Utah#Factory Butte (Emery County, Utah), after I fully merged content to there. [Was "Keep" before, but note "Redirect" is consistent with what I stated at first. --Doncram (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)] Note this is a mountain in Utah, and there exists List of mountains in Utah, which could but does not mention this one. At worst this could be merged to a new row about this mountain in that list article, using "id=Factory Butte" to set an anchor on the row, for the redirect to target. But this is just sniping around the edges of a bigger problem, that List of mountains in Utah is very inadequate. Although the sourced info in this article is short, and could easily be merged into a normal row with a description/notes column of a normal table, there is no similar info in the list-article. I would really hope that the editor, if interested in mountains in Utah, would just spend time developing there, and a merger of this and perhaps other short mountain articles into a good list could be done, editorially (possibly with wp:MERGE requests, if a given merger seemed controversial). If the editor is not interested in mountains of Utah, leave this for future editors to handle. This AFD not helping toward developing wikipedia. Maybe this is unfair to bring up, but isn't wp:NOTHERE an essay or guideline that might be relevant. --Doncram (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doncram: Umm, WP:NOTHERE does not apply in any way, and you should know that. Nominating articles for deletion is a normal part of Wikipedia editing. Maybe you meant WP:DINC? Which is also not really applicable as the nominator is essentially claiming that the topic is not notable enough to be cleaned up. If you want to refute that, the best way to do so is to improve the article yourself or provide sources that suggest the topic is notable. ––FormalDude talk 00:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i knew NOTHERE probably didn't exactly apply; DINC is more apt. I have a lot of followup on my plate already, relating to other AFDs, e.g. Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States, in the works related to AFD on "List of locomotives". And about mountains, I have contributed to list-articles of them in the past, and if i recall correctly it wasn't incredibly interesting to me, personally, while it also oddly involved continuing editing controversy. Not my cup of tea right now. --Doncram (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FormalDude, your point taken that my doing a bunch of editing would help (though again wp:DINC (AFD is not for cleanup). I was/am not arguing that this Factory Butte needs to have a separate article, so its Wikipedia notability for that purpose doesn't exactly matter. Merger or redirection was needed, IMO, and I have now gone on to develop a lot at List of mountains in Utah to facilitate "Redirect" decision (because all material has now been merged). Without my having done that, however, it would have been reasonable for this AFD to be closed "Merge" with instructions given in merger tags about how that should be implemented. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People trying to find sources accidentally searched for the wrong butte. Try again?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete name seems familiar from the Oregon Trail games, but I'm not finding much of anything for sources, but mountains and references for these aren't in my wheelhouse of knowledge. Oaktree b (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find anything. It seems that Factory Butte in Wayne County is only about 20 miles away as the crow flies which makes searching difficult. I found a 400-page on the history of Emery County and it mentioned several buttes, but not this one so it appears to be just a WP:MILL land feature. Would not object to redirecting to a list articles, but List of mountains in Utah does not include a sub-list for this county. MB 20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting that. The fact of confusion between the two nearby same-named places is strong argument for Wikipedia to continue to provide clarity on that point (either in the two articles about the two places, or in a list-article section plus the other article). --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone up for a Merge/Redirect to Factory Butte (Wayne County, Utah)? It's already mentioned on that article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This and several other "Delete" votes do not speak to the obvious alternative to deletion proposed in discussion above. Alternatives to deletion must be considered and votes ignoring that, after it was reasonably proposed in this AFD, should be ignored, IMHO. And this should not have been brought to AFD at all, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect, adjusted my !vote to reflect that. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey, it was mentioned that the List of mountains in Utah, which might serve as a merge/redirect target, does not cover peaks in Emery County, but that is no longer true. It has a nice section which mentions Factory Butte. Hey, I would really hope that the editors involved in this AFD, if interested in mountains in Utah, would just spend time developing there. If they're not interested, please just go away and leave development in this area of Wikipedia to those that are. (I !voted Keep above.) --Doncram (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Material on Factory Butte (Emery County) has now been fully merged into List of mountains in Utah and an anchor to its location has been set. IMHO based on the quality of discussion so far, this AFD can only be closed "Redirect" (to target List of mountains in Utah#Factory Butte (Emery County, Utah)). The list-article has now been updated considerably (with help by User:Deor, thanks!), including to show, in linked OSM map, the locations of numerous ones especially in Emery, Utah, and Salt Lake counties. (In this edit, I changed my !vote to Redirect, above.) --Doncram (talk) 20:10, 12 September 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 08:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G22 (Group)

[edit]
G22 (Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, specifically the group lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, with coverage mostly limited to marketing announcements. No WP:BAND criteria clearly met, nominated awards non-notable (and one fails verification). While it's possible the group may be notable in the future, an internet search suggests this is not the case currently. Jr8825 • Talk 04:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article describing the launch of a new group. It may be a matter of special local terminology, but if a product is launched in February followed by a comeback in May, it seems a case of aspiration rather than achievement. They do not appear to have won either of the awards for which they were nominated, and anyway these awards do not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO criteria 8 & 9. Possibly TV appearances could count towards criterion 12, but would need something better than a mypornvid.fun link as reference. I don't see sufficient here to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 10 September 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! 01:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita Gogoi

[edit]
Sunita Gogoi (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 significant roles to show WP:NACTOR is met, appeared as minor roles in several movies and several competitive reality shows. Sources seem to be mainly interviews or puff pieces. Article creator is now blocked due to concerns over WP:UPE. Ravensfire (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 1.5 million followers on instagram does not prove the notability Imperfect Boy (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No reliable sources found on a WP:BEFORE. Imperfect Boy (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You read Tamil, do you? Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't he? Assume good faith. At least he's from India, per his bio anyway. More likely than I am to find better sources, a white guy in Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only 1.49% of Keralans do speak Tamil (according to Wikipedia). My point is that searchers by people who don't are unlikely to find anything. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Various mentions in Indian media, mostly fluff pieces about dinner parties or the goings-on of celebrities. Might be more in Tamil sources, I don't see much in English. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources might still be in Tamil but however they are still notable in the Tamil television/film industry and This individual is currently taking part in various different Tamil television shows at the moment and has enough notability to have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.165.207 (talk) 02:23, 28 August 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, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Keep arguments here are weak and, IP editor, I don't think that Oaktree b was advocating Keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of communities in Porter County, Indiana. I'm closing this as a Merge but there might not be much content to bring over to the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clanricarde, Indiana

[edit]
Clanricarde, Indiana (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 find no evidence of this as other than a rail spot. Other than passing references to same, gazetteer stuff, and clickbait, I did find a couple of photos, one of which was not illuminating, but the other, from 1956, shows roughly the same buildings as are currently present; the only changes are that the smaller elevator building is gone, there's large barn/warehouse thing attached to the small building at the far right of the picture, and everything looks a lot more worn. Oh, and the tracks are gone, but the GMaps aerial still shows where they ran. It was a place to put your grain on a train, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at that article and am frankly inclined to nominate it for deletion, but be that as it may, to be included there this would need to be a settlement, lack of evidence for which is what got me going on this in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is certainly a viable topic and one that is worth expansion which of course would involve serious research (instead of knee-jerk deletionism) and a commitment to recording the fading history of rural America and the understanding of what settlement/community means/meant, something within the purview of Wikipedia's purpose. Djflem (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I shan't be discussing that article further at this point other than to remark that the title of it at least is far from encyclopedic. The issue here is that I do not think this was a town, and I want to see some evidence that it was a town. Merging it into another article isn't going to remedy that. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While this Porter County list is not typical, it may be reasonable way to include former populated places that do not warrant their own articles. Reywas92Talk 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no article at Lost communities of Porter County, Indiana, that page is a redirect. Do you have another target page in mind?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed: List of communities in Porter County, Indiana. Djflem (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of India

[edit]
Democratic Party of India (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)

Hasn't won a single seat in any election. No indication of notability. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - It is at least a party in India.
Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:17, 10 September 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! 01:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jhon Samuel

[edit]
Jhon Samuel (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/domains/virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/this-week-we-feature-young-professional-jhon-j-samuel-

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:17, 10 September 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. Sandstein 15:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saajan Ki Saheli

[edit]
Saajan Ki Saheli (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:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Lots of trivial mentions, see 1, 2, 3, but no indication of any of these refs being significant, so WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM are met, so I agree with deletion. VickKiang (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are databases not trivial mentions? VickKiang (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but reopening upon request for further consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: You state more sources will be added, if you can find more good refs, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. VickKiang (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: I know I voted above, but how is using the word still not clear enough? Still, as per your suggestion I've changed it, but it's obvious that I already voted and the closer will not count that as a double vote. VickKiang (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: yes, but you didn't highlight "still". Never mind. Moreover though, I don't know where your "100+ words" claim comes from, but that's not how it works. The source you've mentioned by Jaskiran Chopra says the film was well-received. It's not only the length of coverage but also the nature of coverage, and saying the film is well-received is not a trivial mention. Shahid • Talk2me 11:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay (bolding to clarify), but see Wikipedia:One hundred words. I know it isn't policy, but it's just a rough guide. Per WP:AfC, SIGCOV usually means at least more than one paragraph. Yes, they aren't policy, but I couldn't agree at all that a couple of trivial mentions, bundled together, could be meeting notability? I'm also more curious, saying a 1-sentence "well-received" is not trivial makes no sense IMHO. How do you think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NFILM? VickKiang (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh:. Of course, it doesn't have to be the main topic, but per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This in now way meets any criteria of WP:NFILM. But how is this more than a trivial mention? VickKiang (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, neither the length nor actual coverage is worthy of an article. It's not even saying the film received a major award or critical acclaim, just one ref saying it's well-received. By this logic, most film articles with one short ref and another trivial mention saying it received "positive reviews" is enough to warrant an article? VickKiang (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: We disagree about the definition of "trivial". To answer your question, yes, saying it was well-received (and it's not a random tabloid, but a book source) is not trivial and it does contribute to the article's notability. It is obviously not the only source there. You should remember - there are just no archives of sources/newspapers published at the time of this film's release like there are for American publications which give you archives dating back to the 1930s. This mention explains the film did not go unnoticed. But don't worry, I'm going to add more sources. Shahid • Talk2me 11:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Let's just respectively disagree. Yes, it's a book source, in my POV it meets reliable but not significant, though you probably disagree, which is fine and part of building a consensus:). I'm confident you can find a few and rescue the article! If so, ping me and I'll change my vote. Thanks and have a good day! VickKiang (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having added other sources, from both books and newspapers, as well as one scholarly paper, I believe the article's notability has been established. Shahid • Talk2me 13:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well expanded by Shahid. DareshMohan (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I've seen that there are some updates to this article but I don't think it passes WP:NFILM could someone walk me though how this article now passes WP:NFILM? If it passes I'll just withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Shshshsh: @Dr vulpes: my vote is still weak delete (note: this is in bold as I have striken my previous comment, it's no longer useful), but of course, this is just my personal opinion. Firstly, I need to thank Shshshsh a lot for this great rescue! But, while I'm sure that this will be closed as keep due to the brilliant expansion, I'm unsure. IMHO, ref 2 seems to be SIGCOV. Not sure about this ref, it looks like the only hit in the preview is the index, but the index says it's covered in Page 95 and 99. But how long is the coverage, Shshshsh? If you could transclude it and it turns out to be 1 or 2 pages, I'd change my vote. On ref 1, ref 7, and ref 8, my quick preview search only has 1 hit, IMHO it doesn't meet significant, but if you disagree that's perfectly fine and part of building the consensus! What about the online refs? Most of them are just mentions of the actors and their roles in films, along with a quick review. Ref 4, 9, and 10 are RS and are the more convincing refs in that they at least allow a verfiable, decently written reception section. At the other hand, none seem to directly cover the film in one paragraph, which is my guideline per WP:AfC (this doesn't link to the WikiProject, so apologies), or around 100 words (see previous linked essay). On the other hand, all of these refs taken together could be a convincing argument, despite me personally feeling like the online refs are kind of like WP:LOTSOFSOURCES (that's just my personal POV, of course...). I'd basically like Shshshsh to inform me- how long is this ref? If it's one or two pages, I'd be happy to change my vote entirely, but right now, I'm still going with weak delete to neutral, but would prefer this could be merged somewhere, though the result would probably be keep. VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @VickKiang: In the book "Films and Feminism: Essays in Indian Cinema", an entire ten-page chapter is dedicated to an in-depth discussion of the family structure in four films, one of them being Saajan Ki Saheli. I've copied only short quotes. Shahid • Talk2me 09:27, 13 September 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! 07:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daasi (1981 film)

[edit]
Daasi (1981 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanquever Frett

[edit]
Vanquever Frett (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 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 Harlequins Women. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin Ladies Football Club

[edit]
Harlequin Ladies Football Club (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 article is unsourced and despite my best efforts, unsourceable. There are claims replicated from their homepage, such as first full members of RFU, that might provide for notability, but I am unable to verify this. All I can find is the occasional game blotter from the Sue Moloney Cup but nothing approaching sports or organizational notability. It's unclear whether the club still exists, so not a case of TOOSOON. Thoughts? Note: this is not Harlequins Women. This article is about an amateur team of the same name, color palette. Star Mississippi 00:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because since you've done the research, Star Mississippi, I'd like to know what you think of these proposals for merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Liz. I personally think Harlequins Women makes more sense than the broader club since what little I can find on the amateur club focused on it being for women. I'm not sure there's more than a sentence worth merging, but I don't see this as a scenario where it would be inappropriate. Any more than that is likely to be a DUE issue as well as uncited material. Star Mississippi 02:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, Star Mississippi! Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 10 September 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. I can't help but feel that duplication is a silly solution to this technical problem, but the community seems to disagree. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office

[edit]
List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office (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)

Now completely useless due to the table at List of prime ministers of Australia being made sortable, with the exact same information. Done due to feedback at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of prime ministers of Australia/archive1. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't think the issues with sorting the main article is actually such a problem that a duplicative article is needed. The main list can still describe in prose Menzies's combined time in office again without the need for another page that repeats a nearly identical table. The concerns about multiple entries in a sorted table can also be fixed if cells for elections and ministries are combined. Reywas92Talk 16:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would also need to do that for most of the pre ww1 PM's and a few others. Also Billy Hughes, with his swapping of parties twice mid-term creates even more complications. I honestly feel that this exercise is only making things worse than leaving it alone. Its just not worth it. Maybe if you had 2 separate tables on a single page. The issue is that the list of PM's is primarily a list of individual terms in office, wheras the "time in office" list is primarily a list of actual people. They can't actually be combined into a single table. Anyway thats my thoughts. Superegz (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 10 September 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_September_10&oldid=1110892634"