Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 27	May 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Masjid Salfia Maitra

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

Fails WP:NRELORG/the GNG. The sources cited in the article only mention the mosque in passing (if at all), and a WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article was dePRODded without explanation by an IP, but the notability issues remain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Islam, and India. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is official article of Jamia Masjid Salfia Maitra . so please don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4054:2190:E66F:7BD8:B4F0:96E6:18C9 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia article. Not some "official article" by any stretch. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:GNG and I do not see any reliable sources at all. Chip3004 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I sympathize with those seeking recognition of local landmarks, not everything can attain notability, and this does not. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. The relevant church-notability guideline should be perhaps revisited. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a guideline that claims that this is notable? I can find nothing in English to indicate a pass of the WP:GNG, the only relevant guideline that I know of, so, unless someone with a knowledge of Urdu or another relevant language can help, the passing mentions that this has would indicate a redirect to Maitra, Ramban, where it is mentioned. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG, WP:SNOW, and my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No reliable sources , fails wp:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Nick Barnes

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

Cannot find any significant independent coverage of this actor besides the brief bio posted on Rotten Tomatoes. I am not sure if that is independent either, it looks like it might well have been provided by the actor. No results on Google News, Google Books, or Google Scholar. (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – definitely not notable. Only known for Henry Danger and Danger Force, which could be a easy redirect. Also not much info in the article even justifies it being it's own article (very little info about him or his acting carrer). MichaelFansz (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voith & Mactavish Architects

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

The entire page sounds like an advertisement, especially the "Awards" section which probably doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this company is even notable enough to warrant an article. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Pennsylvania. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though there's nothing wrong with listing awards (these often confer some notability), in this case the awards are very local, or specialist. The company does not seems to attract a lot of notice for its work, therefore doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources used are a mix of local/community or primary sources—nothing that immediately passes GNG (the Architect Magazine stuff seems like directories of projects, not specifically highlighting their work, and the copy reads like it was firm-supplied), and the awards might be notable but the sources detailing them don't indicate that. A search to find that content did not turn up promising leads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Vasquez

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

A case of WP:BLPIE and WP:TOOSOON. This lawyer is only notable for one ongoing high profile case and all coverage is very recent. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does not fail WP:BLP1E due to the significant nature of her role in said event and persistent coverage in reliable sources lasting many months. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how many months? one or two at most? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of kindness, I think you're both slightly missing the mark of what BLP1E aims to do. This is very well summarised here WP:NOTBLP1E. To crudely summarise the summary: BLP1E only excludes when all three criteria are met. So any of us only need to say that one of them isn't met for the whole thing to be thrown out. So when I say she's not likely to remain low profile in future (which seems like a safe hypothesis given how famous she is now) that's enough to veto BLP1E reasons to drop this article. CT55555 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~. If notability is only related to the Depp–Heard case it is a plausible redirect to that. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my redirect per depth of coverage. Perhaps we can revisit this when the dust settles and the subject's long-term importance becomes clearer. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:BLP1E is the policy quoted (I'll focus on that and ignore the essay) and it says not to create an article only when all three of the following criteria are met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The first criteria is met. The second one is not met. In my opinion, she is not likely to remain low profile after this event. The third one is debatable, but we need all three to be met to justify deleting and that is clearly not the case here. CT55555 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: BLP1E criterion #1 is clearly met, #2 and #3 are debatable. In my opinion, her role in the trial and coverage thereof is significant enough to fulfill #3, but marginally so. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with my colleagues above that she passes WP:GNG and this is not a problem of WP:BLP1E or WP:TOOSOON. This trial has become an important cultural event, and the subject of this article will likely be renowned for a long time. (She will likely even be portrayed in film and TV one day, though not sure if that makes a difference.) -PaulPachad (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article currently is quite bad, however I think that if we keep the article that it will most likely be definitely improved to a good article standard. Bigeshjen (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She argued a case which set legal precedent and was covered snd heard around the world. This is a silly nomination made just because of standing on a single point of initial logic which would seem to justify it.Strattonsmith (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above reasons InvadingInvader (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think she's likely to remain low profile. Popoki35 (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, close as snowball. Has become one of the most high profile lawyers in the United States, and we can be certain her career will skyrocket as a result of the win. I mean, how many lawyers have been immortalized in tattoo form... Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You cannot deny that this trial has solidified her notability with reliable sources. Arguably, she got as much attention (and I'll say it... for mostly sexist reasons) as the plaintiff and the defendant in this high profile case. A case which she won. A modern day Cochran, really. Trillfendi (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Overwhelming~~ now unanimous consensus for keep above, I suggest a WP:SNOWBALL early close.

CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited my own comment above CT55555 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nearly a billion impressions on a hashtag created for her? Beyond just the case her notability has been demonstrated, even if it initially started with the case. Coverage already exists for her. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable by the guidelines listed. General and biography. And in real-life. IrishOsita (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — BLPE1 is being cited here? I guess I’m not the only new one here. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 12:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Langer

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

{{BLP primary sources}} tag since 2007. Everything is sourced from the subject's blog or some other primary source. Somewhat promotional and likely COI editing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Technology, and Aviation. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because you turn out lots of material does not make you notable. We need substantial sources about a subject from others, and we lack that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This biography offers almost exclusively primary sources. Its subject distinctly fails the criteria for notability. And the fact that it was created and then filled in by mostly single-purpose accounts does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aldri mer 13!

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

I found no significant coverage. The article is unreferenced and only has an external link to IMDb. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Norway. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made by a non-notable director and the page is unreferenced with only an IMDb link as you mentioned. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion reason given. I added 5 significant reviews and can get access to 10 or 11 more reviews on Monday. Please never nominate a Norwegian film again without first soliciting help from someone with access to the source library. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte No matter how many sources you found, having no significant coverage is a valid reason for deletion. Being a moot point now doesn't change that. SL93 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, there are links in the no Wikipedia article, which could have been mentioned in the nomination. They may not be significant coverage, but they are useful background for editors voting on the nomination.

Aldri mer tretten in the National Library of Norway 's filmography, appears to be a reliable data base
Aldri mer tretten in Filmfront, crowdsourced, but mentions ratings from Verdens Gang, Dagbladet, Aftenposten and Dagsavisen.
Aldri mer tretten in the Swedish Film Database, appears to be a reliable data base
there is an article about the director at no:Sirin Eide

I also found a Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation page, which says the film "won first prize at the Frankfurt Children and Youth Festival", possibly de:Lucas (Filmfestival). TSventon (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte, what you wrote is dangerously close to WP:HARASSMENT. No editor has the right to dictate to another how to formulate opinions or suggestions, as you did. As to your point about "no valid deletion point given," please reconsider: The three reasons given by the nominator are entirely legitimate ("no significant coverage", "unreferenced," "only an external link to IMDb"). Kindly revisit WP:AGF and WP:CIV. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Thanks for making those comments. I wouldn't even have access to those newspaper sources even if I knew the language. The comment from Geschichte could also be interpreted to say that no one should also nominate an article with English coverage for deletion without access to newspaper sources. That's not how things work. As someone who has participated in AfD for over 10 years with a good streak of matching the final outcome, I don't appreciate being treated in such a way due to one AfD. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, If you are doing more Norwegian AfD nomination, including a Nasjonalbiblioteket newspaper search might be useful. A customised version of the link in the Sofie Cappelen nomination, https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Aldri%20mer%2013%22&mediatype=aviser&fromDate=19820202&toDate=20220603 has 5,361 hits and several of them look like significant coverage, even without attempting to understand the Norwegian. TSventon (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The sources cited above by TSventon are simple listings. By themselves, as TSventon says, the sources are reliable but all they have are trivial, small, practically obligatory listings of the film in the National Film Library, a publicly-written website, and the Swedish Film Database. These amount to nothing much but the sources now added in the article after its AfD nomination by Geschichte are indeed proof of notability, seeing as they are non-trivial mentions. Moreover, they are sources listed in Wikipedia: Bergensavisen, Rogalands Avis, Drammens Tidende, Drammens Tidende, and Romerikes Blad. My access to the language was boosted through the assistance of a native speaker, to whom I stand publicly grateful. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed rant and associated handling of it

Are all of you clinically insane?

Order the film on DVD and see it for yourselves if you doubt its existence.

Every person in Norway remembers "Never again 13". (Aldri mer 13). And Sophie Cappelen from Hotel Cæcar.

But rest assured, we will "NEVER AGAIN WASTE OUR TIME WRITING ARTICLES IN ENGLISH" 89.8.149.65 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. No one doubts its existence. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification : A request to topic-ban user 89.8.149.65 has been tabled at ANI. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Geschichte for adding newspaper sources; as the IP pointed out, it's hard to find them online before recent years (plus there's a lot I can't access from where I am). Notability is now demonstrated by ample coverage in reliable sources. Coverage in English is not required, though where it does exist it's useful to readers to add it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as newspaper coverage has been found. Geschichte could you also comment on whether Sofie Cappelen, nominated for deletion on the same day, is notable? TSventon (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references added to the article since nomination including reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is sourcing exists on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofie Cappelen

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

I found no significant coverage. I would suggest merging to her only significant role at Hotel Cæsar, but this article is unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Norway. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should never have articles lacking reliable source coverage, and neither a subject's own website nor IMDb is a case of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A family relation is the only connection of the subject to the notion of notability. This cannot be helped. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Although her biography doesn't adequately communicate it, Cappelen is a famous actress, mostly owing to her role (1998-2010) in the Hotel Cæsar TV series (1998-2017), whose popularity may be compared to that of Downton Abbey. That said, most of the other titles she's contributed to are (despite being widely known in Norway) barely of interest to English-language Wikipedia. Thus, the question is whether this notable yet single role in Hotel Cæsar justifies a biography in English-language Wikipedia. I see that some editors of Cappelen's biography have given prominence to her family backgrounds, but I don't think this is something Cappelen emphasises herself. I wouldn't blame her for what might be the fixation of pedigree lovers. By the way, in the National Library's database, the search phrase "Sofie Cappelen" gives 1,055 hits in Norwegian newspapers between 1982 and 2022. Link: https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Sofie%20Cappelen%22&mediatype=aviser&fromDate=19820202&toDate=20220603 Thanks. Brox Sox (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brox Sox, do you know if the newspaper articles give what Wikipedia would regard as significant coverage of Cappelen? That is the main issue for en Wikipedia notability. A lot of the hits are "Victoria (Sofie Cappelen" as part of a Hotel Cæsar plot summary. TSventon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon: When excluding the phrase "Victoria", the search renders 205 hits, mainly (a) TV listings, (b) standard news bulletins distributed from Norwegian News Agency to local newspapers, and (c) some news about Cappelen signing her book and so on. https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Sofie%20Cappelen%22%20-Victoria&mediatype=aviser&fromDate=19820202&toDate=20220603 As to TV listings and standard news bulletins, there seem to be many repetitions. Example: https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Sofie%20Cappelen%20er%20p%C3%A5%20restaurant%22&mediatype=aviser&fromDate=19820202&toDate=20220603 Brox Sox (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR states: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Cappelen has had central roles in at least two notable productions: Aldri mer 13! (movie), Hotel Cæsar (TV series). Of course, they're not Hollywood productions, but they're notable in Norway. Trying to find substantiated support for a decision, I've compared Cappelen to some of her Hotel Cæsar colleagues who have BLPs in English Wikipedia, including Dag Vågsås, Kristin Frogner, Per Christensen, Vanessa Borgli, Stian Barsnes-Simonsen. With the possible exception of Barsnes-Simonsen, these actors don't appear as more notable than Cappelen. Brox Sox (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Brox above, as well as in general. Two notable productions and a flurry of news coverage surrounding her book tour should be enough. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC) ~~Neutral~~: the fact that Hotel Cæsar ran for nearly twenty years is evidence itself of popularity, but given that Cappelen seems to have little notability outside of her involvement there, and that coverage of her involvement seems to be sparse, if distinct, I'm loathe to make an exception to WP:NACTOR. I concur with Brox that notability is not inherited. I'm voting neutral for now; Brox Sox and TSventon, how would you describe extant coverage (print and online) of her role as Victoria, excluding plot summaries online? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iseult: According to the National Library database, the most recent media coverage of Cappelen pertaining to her Hotel Cæsar role was in Vårt Land on 26 Apr 2019. In Aftenposten on 4 Apr 2018, Cappelen and two of her fellow psychology students published an opinion piece. Media coverage in 2017 was mainly about Hotel Cæsar being taken off air. In 2015, a couple of local newspapers covered Cappelen's tour where she read from and signed her new children's book. https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Sofie%20Cappelen%22&mediatype=aviser&sort=datedesc&fromDate=19820202&toDate=20220603 Somewhat related, Verdens Gang wrote on 17 Dec 2011: "Sofie Cappelen from Hotel Cæsar worships her life with toddlers—and the dream of becoming a fifth-generation publisher" (cf. J.W. Cappelens Forlag, since 2007 Cappelen Damm). Cappelen's books are: 1) "Bjørnis og de røde prikkene" (2015), ISBN 9788299939201, Kvitøya forlag, 2) "Bjorny and the Red Dust", ISBN 9788299939218, Kvitøya forlag. This is a non-notable publisher. Furthermore, Cappelen has established and owns Eventyrforlaget, a small publishing company that has publised "Godnattareglen" (2011), ISBN 9788299872300, by Jacob B. Bull (author) and A. Bloch (illustrator). Brox Sox (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of GNG and NOTTEMPORARY. Her acting career may be on hiatus, or substantially over, but my own search and especially the coverage highlighted by Brox Sox indicate she's received a lot of press coverage, and over several years. And we have enough referenceable information for a biography. I'm going to marshall what sources I can see and umprive the article based on them, but can't get to it immediately and am recording my argument here first since this discussion aooears to be overdue for closure or relisting. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. Yngvadottir, if you don't have time to check the sources WP:WikiProject Women in Red may be able to help. TSventon (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to get to it tomorrow. Right now I'm up to my neck in rock drawings for an off-wiki project :-) It's just going to take me a while to do the researching and rewriting. If someone else gets there first, I'll be thrilled :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets general notability. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Rast

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here indicates Rast meets any of our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion nor proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable. IrishOsita (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. John Stroumtsos

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

Biography of a judge and unsuccessful political candidate, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for judges or politicians. As always, candidates don't get articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one -- so his includability depends more on the judgeship, but he was a judge on the lower level of the court system, which is also not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about his career, and the judgeship is sourced solely to the court system's own self-published annual report about itself, which includes his name only in a list of all of the several hundred judges rather than actually featuring any non-trivial content about him, which is not support for notability at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and New Jersey. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage on newspapers.com is exceptionally WP:LOCAL and mostly run-of-the-mill. Example of what the best clippings I found look like; doesn't get him above WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:USCJN. State appellate judges are not notable by project standards. BD2412 T 02:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not really notable; he had some factors for my standards, and I could go either way. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Binge

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

Deprodded with addition of Hollywood Reporter source. The Variety and Multichannel News links are 404 and I was unable to corroborate the info in them, so this fails WP:V unless someone can find something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment This _might_ help with WP:V, possibly not: [1] [] - WP:N problem remains. Artw (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Richmond, Ray (2008-07-10). "Reality Binge. It isn't just that this new Fox Reaity series is trying to emulate "The Soup." This actually is closer to attempted identity theft". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Yet “Reality Binge” almost accomplishes the impossible by going overboard on the goofiness in its zest to become a virtual DNA match of “The Soup.” ... It isn’t just that this new Fox Reaity series is trying to emulate “The Soup.” This actually is closer to attempted identity theft. I think there must be a law on the books somewhere prohibiting this. But until it’s enforced, we’ll get the deliriously dopey Eric Toms mugging and chewing his surroundings with tireless abandon in an attempt to be the destitute man’s McHale. Part of it, of course, is the material he’s given, which essentially is a collection of setups designed to chuckle derisively and arch his eyebrows. Sometimes it’s cute; other times, you just want to take Toms out back and give him a sound whoopin’. He may indeed be the whitest man on the planet, which in truth probably is a badge of sorts."
2. Schneider, Michael (2008-05-05). "Fox Reality goes on 'Binge'. Comedian Eric Toms to host reality recap show". Variety. Archived from the original on 2008-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Fox Reality Channel is prepping a new signature weekly skein, "Reality Binge," set to launch this summer. "Reality Binge" fills the void left by the cancellation of "Reality Remix," which covered the alternative series world with both a daily strip and weekly roundup seg. "Binge" bows Thursday, July 10, at 7 p.m. ... Weller/Grossman Prods. is behind the show, which will be hosted by comedian Eric Toms. Hourlong will feature clip packages, original sketches and comedy segments, among other elements."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reality Binge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rookies (American TV series)

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

Deprodded with addition of Common Sense Media review, but I was unable to find any other sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CSM and DVD Talk (which has been used as a RS for films and TV since at least 2009) reviews present in article. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Tampa Bay Times, Tampa Tribune Palladium-Item, Daily News sources. Two from one of the cities it was filmed and two elsewhere nationally. Passes GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move This House

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

Couldn't find any more sourcing than what's already in the article. Prod contested after a source was added Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Barger, Theresa Sullivan (2005-09-30). "TV Spotlight". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The review notes: "The verdict: Too bad everyone can't have help from Hazard and the Move This House team when it's time to change nests. With a listening ear and imaginative eye, Hazard shows the value in thinking through a move. If we all had a friend who could give that kind of help, we wouldn't have basements full of stuff we've lugged from house to house and never unpacked."
2. Pittinger, Linda (2006-01-15). "Home makeover ideas can be found on A&E". Hanover Evening Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Another show hosted by Tanya Memme and Roger Hazard is "Move This House." The premise of this show is that a couple has purchased a new home and Roger decides what moves from the couples old house into their new house. What doen't go to the new house right away goes to storage for a year. ... If the homeowner wants them badly enough, they can make a special plea to Roger to "please, please, please, let them take these favorite items to the new home. But it's all up to Roger. They, the home owner, do each, man and wife, get to pick one item that must go to the new home and Roger has to make that item work in the new home. The next thing you know, Tanya is escorting the family to their new home. It's been sight unseen to them as Roger, Tanya and their team, get the house ready for the family."
3. Dunham, Sandy (2005-09-17). "Moving help, strings attached". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Screaming Flea Productions, of Seattle, is producing a new show called "Move This House" for the A&E network. In this "Sell This House" spinoff, which premieres Sunday, Oct. 2, host Tanya Memme and design expert Roger Hazard will pack up your stuff, move you in and design your new house for free — in three days."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Lubenski, Cathy (2006-03-26). "Title: Homescape - Home Almanac - On TV". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Mike and Terri Lanfear's old home has character aplenty, but their new place is bland -- white walls with blocky architecture. Designer Roger Hazard is charged with turning this dull, lifeless space into a functional family home."
  2. Beers, Carole (2006-03-08). "Ever bowl with one of the Sonics?". King County Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Seattle's Screaming Flea Productions, which produces Move This House for the A&E network, soon will welcome host Tanya Memme, designer Roger Hazard and the rest of the team that packs you up, moves you in, and designs your home in only three days."
  3. "Click Tips". The Telegraph. 2005-09-29. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Move This House 4 p.m. Sunday, A&E. Moving into a new house is stressful enough - but add to the mix a complete stranger who determines which of your belongings you can keep and which must be hauled off to storage, and the situation can become downright infuriating. That's the premise behind this new A&E offering, hosted by Tanya Memme from the network's current "Sell This House.""
  4. "This Week on Cable". Sun-Sentinel. 2005-10-02. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "4 p.m. today on A&E, Move This House: Moving into a new house is stressful enough, but add to the mix a stranger who determines which of your belongings you keep and which must be hauled off to storage and the situation can become infuriating."
  5. Cutler, Jacqueline (2006-11-20). "Talking with Tanya Memme". Brantford Expositor. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Appearances would have it that Tanya Memme, host of A&E Network's unscripted Sunday series "Move This House," has little experience for this genre. She describes herself as a therapist to contestants but has no psychology background. ... Like all hosting jobs, "Move This House" requires Memme to be poised on camera. ... She's a natural at comforting contestants when designer Roger Hazard puts their belongings in storage and decorates without their input. She also interviews participants to learn what they like, which helps Hazard."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Move This House to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The A-List (2007 TV series)

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

Deprodded with a Common Sense Media review. However, the only other sources I could find were false positives that used the phrase "The A-List" in other articles on Animal Planet, or superficial mentions that only verify the show's existence and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ashby, Emily (2022-02-28). "The A-List. TV review by Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The review notes: "Parents need to know that, despite its TV-G rating, this series is laced with sexual innuendoes that will either go over kids' heads or instigate lots of questions that parents may not want to answer. Comedians often make jokes about how animals' mating rituals and sexual practices compare to humans', and there's occasional mention of the critters using their sex appeal for "getting action." Some scenes also show decaying and dismembered animal carcasses."
2. Cutler, Jacqueline (2007-12-15). "O little town of Bethlehem - mom's tv log - A week's worth of family viewing". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: ""The A-List" (Friday, 9 and 9:30 p.m., Animal Planet). D-list comics joke about animals mating while clips are shown. Most surprising is that whip-tailed lizards have evolved without males, and reproduction occurs because a female gets a testosterone surge. The first installment, "Lovers," is strictly for teens because of the double entendres. The second episode, "Loud mouths," has a cute line from Gilbert Gottfried : "I don't like people who talk loud or have annoying voices.""
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. McDonough, Kevin (2007-12-07). "Monk snuffs out Santa at Christmas". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Combine animals, "celebrities" and countdowns and you've got "The A-List" (9 p.m., Animal Planet) a punch line driven take on behavior in the wild. Just who are the biggest gluttons in the animal world? The best parents? The Top 10 loud mouths? Panelists include Danny Bonaduce and Gilbert Gottfried, so we're talking the cream of the crop here."
  2. Philpot, Robert (2007-12-07). "Make way for Frosty, 'Friday,' killer shrews". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "The A-List: That's "A" as in "animal," as this new series provides a comic look at extreme animal behavior, with help from celebrities with similar traits — e.g., Danny Bonaduce will address the top trouble-making animals, Gilbert Gottfried the biggest loudmouths, etc. 8 p.m., Animal Planet"
  3. Righi, Len (2007-11-10). "He predicted it". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Before then, Hoffman may host a segment of an Animal Planet special called "The A List on Animal Planet." "My segment is where they're counting down the 10 animals who most use trickery to survive," says Hoffman, "animals that mess with each other's minds so to speak.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The A-List to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Mayer

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. Tagged by others for paid editing. Editor was an expert at creating promotional articles by their edit #3 North8000 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are self-published. Article here is little more than a CV. non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link two inches above and you will find some 80,000 independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 132. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources, no WP:SIGCOV, and in a very high citation field, a h-index of 132 is not all that spectacular.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ari T. Benchaim Could you please elaborate your statement "not all that spectacular," because all standard metrics would put an h-index of 132 within the top 1% (even within clinical medicine). Thanks Gooseberry487 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Is this some kind of weird prank, or are editors really this ignorant of NPROF? Like, aside from meeting C1 with an h-index of 102 (on Scopus) and ~54000 citations, he apparently also may meet C8 for being an editor-in-chief of the Journal of the International AIDS Society according to this article. in a very high citation field, a h-index of 132 is not all that spectacular. I have no words for this. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like, just to emphasize how outstandingly misguided this AfD is, out of Mayer's 3,738 co-authors he has the fourth-highest h-index. That puts him in the top 0.1% of researchers in his field. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Meets WP:Prof by virtue of citations, WP:Prof#C1, and yes, and h-index of 132 (despite a high citation field like clinical medicine) is very impressive. It roughly puts a researcher among the 1,500 most cited researchers in the world.^[1] Gooseberry487 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Highly Rated Researchers (h>100)". Retrieved 29 May 2022.

Obvious keep, and this is my area of expertise. His top citations are 8029,5110,1357,1048,910 and there are more than 60 papers over 200 citations. This is a very long way above average even in this field; for example, the HIV/AIDS researcher Douglas Richman, whose article I started when he was one of the highest-cited across all biomedical fields, has a highest-cited paper of 4493. In addition Journal of the International AIDS Society is a respectable journal that might confer notability under WP:PROF alone. This should be withdrawn. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If independent sources are needed, then five seconds in WL located Pamela Das (2013). "Kenneth Mayer: global leader in HIV prevention." The Lancet Nov 02; Vol. 382 (9903), pp. 1479 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62278-3 which is even open access. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - full professor at Harvard. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC; even if at this doesn't appear to pass GNG at first glance, further guidelines, without looking for sources and limiting oneself to just extant article content, provide that leaders in the field are notable. He is such (see last award). Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Miracles

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

Deprodded with addition of local human-interest story. Couldn't find anything else of note Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chris, Cynthia (2006). Watching Wildlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-8166-4546-6. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 392 words of coverage about the subject. book notes: "Other series explored unconventional aspects of animal and human relationships, using animals as ciphers onto which any number of meanings with distinctive ideological ends can be projected. Animal Miracles, for example, depends on trends in a syndication market optimistic about the capacity of animals to hold viewers’ attention, and on a turn toward dramatic content inflected with sometimes-vague spiritual concerns, or sometimes not-so-vague nonsecular Christian content. A series of thirty-nine one-hour shows produced by Peace Arch Entertainment Group of Canada, Animal Miracles was sold in 2001 to Animal Planet, and is also run regularly by the family-oriented broadcast network PAX TV under the title Miracle Pets. Typical episodes feature four segments. In each, an animal performs a feat that saves a human life or that can be interpreted as a moral lesson. Canadian actor Alan Thicke introduces each segment and provides voiceover; ..."
2. Hooks, Barbara (2005-05-05). "Pay TV - Tuesday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article provides 124 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "OUR four-footed friends are often our most faithful companions. Sometimes, they're also our salvation. In a new episode of this hero-gram to the animal kingdom we meet a mild-mannered mule that turned into a kick-boxing black-belt when his master was attacked; a dog that saved its best pal from drowning; and a rescued kitten that grew up and returned the favour by saving its mistress from a diabetic coma. We also visit an animal sanctuary offering a second chance and quality of life to discarded, old and injured pets saved from expedient rather than humane euthanasia. In a throwaway society, it's heartening to see how these aged, infirm and disabled residents overcome their frailties to bond with each other and their human carers. Review "
3. Dretzka, Gary (2004-09-11). ""Come into my parlor..." - Kids' TV this fall shows adventure and cheek — but the FCC may be tightening controls". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "The Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ and the Center for Digital Democracy filed a petition Sept. 1 asking the FCC not to renew licenses for the Washington, D.C.-area WDCA and WPXW, which serve the nation's capital — for showing "Miracle Pets," "Ace Lightning" and "Stargate Infinity." ... "Miracle Pets," shown locally on KWPX-TV, is a reality series that focuses on animals that protect humans by means of extraordinary instincts, survival wisdom or mysticism ("dog discovers a tumor; a cat takes a 3,000-mile journey"). The petition alleges that the program "fails to meet four of the FCC's six requirements for children's educational programming: 1) the program is not specifically designed for children, 2) it is not specifically designed to educate, 3) it is not regularly scheduled (on WDCA and WPXW), and 4) it is not identified on air as educational programming.""
4. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (2007) [1979]. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 117 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Miracle Pets featured uplifting stories of pets who helped people. They included a dog that got help for its owner after his car had plunged into a ravine, leaving him with a neck injury and unable to move; a pig and a cow that had become friends and helped each other survive when a fire destroyed the shed in which they lived; a crow that had befriended a stray kitten and acted like its mother for several months, and an abandoned dog that was taken in by a woman with a young child and then saved the children from a possible rattlesnake bit. Individual segments used actual footage, reenactments, home videos and interviews with the people involved."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Pearson, Jennifer (2001-12-13). "Lodi police dog featured on TV show". Lodi News-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "On Saturday, a crew from “Miracle Pets,” a program that airs weekly on PAX-TV, visited Lodi to shoot tape for an upcoming episode that will feature Dutra and Sam. ... “Miracle Pets,” hosted by actor Alan Thicke (“Growing Pains”) profiles pets and their owners with true stories about the connections between them. They may involve a heroic pet rescue, a wildlife adventure and even remarkable encounters on farms, at zoos, in aquariums or perhaps a park."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Animal Miracles, also broadcast as Miracle Pets, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Into1#Members. with history under the redirect for Cunard or anyone else interested in a smerge. Star Mississippi 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rikimaru Chikada

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

Rikimaru Chikada

Singer and dancer who does not individually satisfy musical notability. This page was declined twice as a draft, was manually moved to article space once, moved back to draft space, and manually moved to article space again. The article has been reference-bombed and the references are not being checked. The article should speak for itself, but only speaks for the subject as a member of two groups, Into1 and WARPs UP (which has also been manually moved into article space). Moving this back to draft space a second time would be move-warring. The community should delete or redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, China, and Japan. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, has already been deleted a few times. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Into1#Members? Cunard (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should be acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It needs a lot of work. A lot, almost to the point of WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Into1#Members? Cunard (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect is fine with me. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Into1#Members (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Preserving the history will allow editors to do a selective merge to the target article and to undo the redirect if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there is "very little info" as the creator states, that's an argument against notability in itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tynedale Virtual College

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

this reads like a promotion for their directory about a non-notable school program. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass GNG, not even sure article explains significance or importance of the program itself. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put in literally all the info i could find out about the program on the internet, and there is very little info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbatey1105 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough sources. Also fails my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Airport

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

Couldn't find any more sourcing beyond what's already here. Somehow survived AFD back in 2005 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goodfellow, Jessica (2018-03-16). "Animal Airport moves to C4". Broadcast. ProQuest 2014499121.
  The article notes: "Icon Films’ observational doc series Animal Airport has found a new home at Channel 4 after Discovery passed on a recommission. Launched on Animal Planet UK in 2012 and running for two series, the show will now air on More 4. The 13X60 minute third series will follow the daily challenges faced by staff at Heathrow’s Animal Reception Centre. ... The previous two series of Animal Airport sold to 95 countries around the world including Discovery US, Channel Seven in Australia and SBS Netherlands."
2. Piller, Andrew (2012-06-14). "Dead Boss / Jools Holland: London Calling / Animal Airport". Broadcast. ProQuest 1020389743.
  The article notes: "Animal Airport had me at "her dog is seized at passport control" in the tease. What's not to love? It's Airline, but supercharged with animals rather than stupid people shouting at check-in about late flights. It was always going to be an easy win in terms of pleasing me. But it was a good watch due to more than just its subject matter, as the stories were strong and the drama just the right side of over-egging the pudding. My only niggle was that the voice-over did too much of the -storytelling, rather than letting me watch the footage and get into the story. Perhaps a short edit and not enough filming on the ground necessitated such a large volume of voiceover. "
3. Peretti, Jacques (2000-05-23). "Great white hoax". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Animal Airport (C5) bothered to make a film about this. With cameras shoved just about everywhere bar the back-passage of a drug-smuggler in preceding Heathrow series, it was inevitable that the "Animal Reception Centre" would be last in line for more of TV's internal examinations. Sadly for C5, there was no camp Jeremy "character" waiting to be discovered, just a lot of men in overalls, cleaning up elephant dung. The director even set up a shot with a heron (supposed to appear spontaneously from a box as the voice-over said ..."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Television preview". The Northern Echo. 2000-07-17. p. 17. ProQuest 328897431.
    The article notes: "Animal Airport (Channel 5, 8.30pm): The last of the series and on this final trip to Heathrow's Airport Animal Reception Centre there is one very important guest arriving - James, a gelding who is a gift from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the Queen. And there are also 1,500 tortoises from Uzbekistan - each one of which has to be counted carefully."
  2. Brain, Anna (2016-11-16). "Out of the box". Herald Sun. p. 16. ProQuest 1839146154.
    The article notes: "[REALITY] ANIMAL AIRPORT 7TWO / 7PM * * * Flying economy can be tough, but spare a thought for our four-legged friends who are doing it really tough, down below. This week a shipment of cats "hasn't travelled well", airport speak for miserable moggies who've been bounced about in boxes. A shipment of thirsty tortoises stop en route to Mexico, and a (not-so) miniature circus donkey is too big for the forklift."
  3. "Animal Airport". The Coffs Coast Advocate. 2014-12-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "This week, an inspector tries to track down and detain a dog that may be carrying rabies. Two well-bred rams from New Zealand give the team the run-around, and after two years it’s finally time for the resident lemurs to head to their new home."
  4. "Our furry friends need to fly too". The Reporter. 2016-11-25. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "Animal Airport’s cameras capture all of the behind- the-scenes action, following the ARC staff in the terminals and on the runways. This week, Ross is confronted by an angry bulldog, Sian is on duty to welcome a shipment of sheep from New Zealand and Chris has to repack some pea fowl which have arrived in terrible condition."
  5. Adams, Cameron (2013-12-30). "Switched On TV". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
    The article notes: "ANIMAL AIRPORT CHANNEL 7, 8pm IF you were going to try to smuggle a tortoise through an airport, where would you put it? If you said inside your underpants then your animal guru features tonight on this UK reality show filmed at the animal leg of Heathrow Airport. The angry French bloke has ’fessed up to one tortoise in a box, but the officers know there’s a second one."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Animal Airport to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect anything can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey

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

This list of mayors of tiny East Newark, NJ (which should not be confused with its much larger neighbor) easily fails WP:NLIST as a list of non-notable people. Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and New Jersey. Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merge all content but all such work must be done by nominator with one hand tied behind their back.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (bold mine) plus fact that city size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria and that Wikipedia lists do not require persons, places, things on lists to be individually notable. Per cited WP:NLIST, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", such as this one which is well-organised.
- Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
- Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
- Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
- Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. There is parent article in which it can be embedded East Newark, New Jersey for a merge, but would overwhelm that article. Djflem (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  None of these are valid reasons. It simple really, the people in the list aren't independently notable nor is the topic itself discussed by multiple reliable sources. This is a town of roughly 2,500 people. The mayor of such a small town just is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines are certainly valid. Persons on list do not have to be independently notable and Wikipedia criteria guidelines specifically states a reason to create a list is because "most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". There is no guideline which makes reference to the size of a place which regard to such lists. Djflem (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not multiple reliable sources discussing the topic, which is a requirement to justify a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per NP:list: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Djflem (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cherry-pick the guidelines. You omitted the last sentence which says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." This list has not been shown to be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Newark, New Jersey#Local government. I have some concerns about valid attribution (see: WP:CWW), since there are verbatim phrases that are shared between Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey and East Newark, New Jersey in that particular section. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djflem Patapsco913 (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Newark, New Jersey#Local government. The notion that a small table would somehow "overwhelm" the parent article, itself not particularly large, is laughable. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's so funny. It would dedicate 17.5% of the artcle to a singular aspect of government history, which is disproportionate and imbalanced.Djflem (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I'm pretty skeptical of Wikipedia editors doing original-research-by-synthesis with complicated list criteria, but a list of mayors is the kind of thing that's acceptable. Yes, it's a small town - so what? As long as valid sources exist, it's fine. While this article could be merged, it seems fine stand-alone as well. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these type of lists, as long as they are sourced, form a valuable, if tiny, resource for researchers.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy-based reason, see WP:VALUABLE--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See guideline Wikipedia:LISTPURP: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists Djflem (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question' First of all, what is considered valuable is very subjective. Moreover, is this a structured list? Is it organized chronologically? NO grouped by theme? NO or an annotated list? And what exactly qualifies as an annotated list? It could be argued that any list with citations is annotated.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theme (see title), chronology (see dates), structure (see form), and annotations (see notes) are obvious. Djflem (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous version of the article was missing dates, I see that changed. But I still contend that just because a list is organized chronologically, it does not exempt it from notability guidelines. If that was the case we could have articles like List of dog catchers of East Newark & List of Superintendents of the East Newark School District provided that they are in chronological order. And again, virtually all list with citations are annotated. WP:LISTPURP is meant to be read in conjunction with WP:NLIST, not to override it.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep per Djflem. Value judgements aren't relevant here; policy is, and policy is unambiguous. (edit: after reading cases for merges, sure, a small table should be fine, but if this gets to the point of 10+ mayors, we should make the list.) Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is that? DJflem listed about 10 of them just to see what sticks.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all of them. WP:BLUDGEON Iseult^Δxparlez moi 17:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Cambiaso

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Previously deleted, creator is indeffed as a a sock. None of the references are about him. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure cruft, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Recent PhD in a high-citation field. Posting as a researcher at CNR is respectable but his citation record [2] is not enough yet to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and nothing else in the article rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it's "pure cruft", whatever that means, but I agree with David Eppstein that the subject is too early career as yet. His Google Scholar profile shows one well-cited paper and one moderately cited, both on the slow DoS attacks (106,71,41,39,34). Espresso Addict (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was implying it's too vague as to why he's notable, it's more of a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This goes both ways. If we write articles on clearly-notable academics that cover their career milestones neutrally and encyclopedically rather than hyping up how big those milestones are, then deletionists (especially those unaware of what constitutes significance in an academic biography) think that because we are not hyping them up, there must be nothing to hype up, and therefore that they are non-notable, and that because our articles discuss the career milestones neutrally and so do curricula vitae then WP:NOTRESUME applies. That reasoning is faulty, of course, but so is yours, for the same reason. Evaluate the impact they have made as academics, and the recognition they have earned for it, pay less attention to the steps they have taken to earn that recognition, and even less attention to the tone in which we discuss those steps in our articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't hype anyone up, we present the facts, if he doesn't meet standards here, then we can't keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails [[WP:BLP] and WP:RS. References are by him, not about him. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justis Bolding

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

Subject lacks notability; one brief role on One Life to Live, and now seems to have retired from acting. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The brief role was 168 episodes Atlantic306 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my perspective was that out of the 45-year span of One Life to Live, her 2-year stint was rather brief. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to her "brief" role in that soap, she also had what seems like a significant role in Halo 3. On the other hand, I'm not able to find much any SIGCOV despite this. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 10:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have sufficient coverage to justify keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, she voiced a main character in Halo 3, one of the biggest video games of all time... but the actual net result of that work apparently wasn't really anything as far as generating press coverage. I found stray mentions in cast lists, but nothing that would meet SIGCOV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Mozambique

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

Unsourced, unverifiable, un-maintained. Just like all the other "List of people on the postage stamps of X", there is a major consensus by now that these lists should not exist. There is no verifiability, nor any reason this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Deprodded because "it's not controversial", despite all the AFDs and PRODs succeeding on similar lists. Obligatory ping of @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need substantial sources about the topic. We have none. Catalog entries will not overcome the lack of sources. We need sources that actually analyze the topic to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are hundreds of these lists (All pages with titles beginning with List of people on the postage stamps of). Picking them off one at a time at AFD is very time consuming. If there is an AFD consensus to delete these, we should be able nominate them all together and delete them. ~Kvng (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badr Bander

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

No significant coverage cited in any of the five Wikipedia articles on this person across different languages. Searching in Google News and DDG in Arabic yielded practically nothing. Only source I can find is Al Faisaly which is the website of a club that he used to play for, therefore the source is not reliable or independent. Appears to be a failure of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sigcov 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of coverage, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer that fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like We Care

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

Barely-sourced stub on a short lived show. Couldn't find anything more than what's already here. Deprodded with addition of a source, but it's still pretty iffy Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I deprodded with two sources -- from the LA Times and New York Times. These are hardly iffy sources. matt91486 (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even read the second source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources that were added after PROD removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one that nobody can read? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. Excerpt: " From its kooky, ransom-note lettering to its stopaction photography and skewed camera angles, "Like We Care" is a textbook study in how grown-ups second-guess youth. Most of the segments feature interviews with teen-agers around the country on topics ranging from the socially relevant (AIDS, addiction, censorship) to the numbingly pointless (record collections, hickeys). "Like We Care" is only as articulate as the teen-agers themselves: to watch several specimens ramble about why they don't allow their little brothers into their rooms is to pray for another Metallica video." DonaldD23 talk to me 17:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I get a "you have reached your article limit" every time I try. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again when the description in the AfD doesn't match what's happening with the article I think the AfD should no longer be considered valid. Artw (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hall, Jane (1992-02-16). "Television: The Newest MTV News Child: Like We Care". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "The latest product from MTV’s news department is “Like We Care,” a daily magazine for 14- to 19-year-olds that debuted two weeks ago. The title is vintage MTV: It’s a teen-age expression that can mean “we don’t care” but which can also mean “we really do care, but we’re too cool to admit it.” MTV is hoping it can tap the latter sentiment with news and information that is relevant to their lives, especially if it’s told in their own voices. ... “Like We Care” also strives for humor. In a segment called “What Sucks,” selected MTV viewers can contribute their own 30-second video (starring themselves) sounding off on a subject, such as “living in the most boring place on Earth"--usually the teen-ager’s hometown."
2. Schoemer, Karen (1992-05-17). "TV View; Teen-Agers Get Down To Issues". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Also on MTV, "Like We Care" (Thursdays at 6:30 P.M.) examines subjects of interest to teen-agers. Fast-paced, noisy and bursting with slang, these shows are desperate to reflect youth culture without patronizing it. ... From its kooky, ransom-note lettering to its stopaction photography and skewed camera angles, "Like We Care" is a textbook study in how grown-ups second-guess youth. Most of the segments feature interviews with teen-agers around the country on topics ranging from the socially relevant (AIDS, addiction, censorship) to the numbingly pointless (record collections, hickeys). "Like We Care" is only as articulate as the teen-agers themselves: to watch several specimens ramble about why they don't allow their little brothers into their rooms is to pray for another Metallica video."
3. Lipton, Lauren (1992-02-08). "TV Reviews : 'Like We Care' Is Like Hip for Teens". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "It’s to MTV’s credit that its magazine series, “Like We Care,” which debuted Monday and airs weekdays at 5 and 9:30 p.m., is thoroughly tuned in to its teen-age audience. Though it occasionally forays into serious issues, the show is at its tongue-in-cheek best hashing out every permutation of that eternal dilemma: how to deal with the opposite sex. An ongoing segment, “Way Dumped,” lets teens write in and rake bad dates over the coals. A randy expose gleefully demonstrated how to give, then camouflage, a hickey."
4. Lomartire, Paul (1992-02-03). "MTV's 'Like We Care' a Hip Look at Teens". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Even though there isn't a lot of competition, after seeing a rough-cut tape of three show segments, my favorite magazine show for teens is MTV's half-hour Like We Care, scheduled to run 5 p.m. weekdays (with repeats each night at 9:30 p.m.). I learned what teens think about routine high school weapons searches. Then I learned more than I ever thought possible about hickeys. I watched two teens administer the love bruise to each other. Then we followed them to a doctor's office for an official explanation of the medical threat. (None.) And the third segment was about a young actor. With the trademark MTV graphics, rock song bites and kinetic camera movement, this is good fun. It'll quickly become a teen hit."
5. Chapman, Francesca (1992-02-13). "A Teen Mag From MTV". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "Should you care about MTV's new series, "Like We Care"? Sure. The new daily show looks at all the important stuff - hickeys, the latest Metallica video, Jason Priestley - and gives it the lively spin that regular MTV viewers expect from the cable music channel. That means lots of flickering video screens, two young and fashionably coiffed VJs (Karyn Bryant and Steve Isaacs) hosting the show, snappy editing and frequent bursts of rock music. ... At its best, "Like We Care" is goofy and illuminating at the same time. ... At its worst, "Like We Care" talks to too many young stars, some intere…"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Like We Care to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard has found and presented clear evidence that the television show is notable. Dream Focus 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Playbook (TV series)

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

Sports shows are less likely to get media attention. I could only find a few superficial mentions here and there. Deprodded.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when I removed the PROD I included the following comment "PROD removed. There was one source listed, it was below the nav box which I have corrected". Saying "Deprodded without comment" is 100% incorrect. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep increasingly of the opinion that flawed AfDs should automatically be chucked out to prevent indiscriminate spamming of the AfD process. Artw (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with anything here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have dozens of deletions in flight, you can afford to withdraw the one that contains a false statement. Artw (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or I can amend the false statement to make it true. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, that in and of itself is not a reason to close an AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a waste of the tens of seconds of effort you guys put in that would be. Anyway thank you for that minor concession to good faith, I guess it beats the baroque attempts to double down against all sense that some others would put in. Artw (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the rationale for starting this AfD as being false, here is another reference in the New Jersey Courier-Post [3] DonaldD23 talk to me 19:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bracy, Aaron (2005-12-01). "Plenty goes into the production of 'Playbook'". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The War Room is where most of the football work is done for Playbook, the lively X's and O's matchup show that airs five nights a week on the NFL Network. There are four viewing stations in a room that seems better suited for one or two. It's there that Playbook analysts Sterling Sharpe, Brian Baldinger, Butch Davis, Solomon Wilcots and Mike Mayock break down the game film to discuss on the show. At the center is Mark Chimielinski, whose title is technical football analyst but whose role is more like an analyst coach."
2. Rogers, Justin (2012-01-07). "NFL Network's 'Playbook' breaks down Detroit Lions-New Orleans Saint matchup". MLive.com. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  The article notes: "NFL Network show Playbook is described on the league's official site as "the ultimate football Xs and Os show, giving viewers the keys to victory for their favorite NFL team." On a recent edition of the show, the focus was squarely on the Saturday playoff matchups. The panel of Brian Baldinger, Sterling Sharpe, Joe Theismann and Brian Billick broke down several aspects of the Detroit Lions' upcoming game with the New Orleans Saints. Here's a brief recap of the show: ... Next up is an email segment, where a viewer asks how the Detroit Lions can attack Drew Brees. ... For what it's worth, the rest of the panel disagreed with Theismann's belief that Johnson will have a limited impact on Saturday."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Playbook to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Police Station

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

No better sourcing found. Current source is a directory listing. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rich, Allen (1958-10-16). "Listening Post and TV review". Valley Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article quotes from KTLA spokesman Bob Reagan. The article notes (my bolding): ""A case in point is our 'Police Station.' After the first show it took a panning from the press. We fired the whole cast, replaced them with more efficient actors. Second show was a little better. Third show was good. Now it's rolling along sponsored," he concluded."
  The quote demonstrates that there is additional offline coverage of the show from 1958 that will be hard to access.
2. K., H. (1959-10-12). ""Police Station"". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 157, no. 9. p. 11. ProQuest 2338091982.
  The review notes: "You have to start somewhere in TV, and this poor cop's Dragnet starts at the bottom where it is apt to stay unless future episodes surpass by far its dull debut. In what obviously was a shoestring operation the sets and locale were limited, leaving the acting to make whatever impact it could with a weak episodic storyline. To a degree the jerky pace might be ascribed to the fact that this was tailored for the standard 26-minute stretch, but KTLA slipped in more commercials than par and trimmed the tale to around 22 minutes. ... Series is produced, written and directed by Sandy Howard, who seems to have spread himself as thin as this format." The article notes that the cast members include Baynes Barron, Gordon Wynn, Henry Beckman, Roy Wright, Bill Hampson, Larry Kerr, Robin Priest, Ruth Seville, Mary Patton, and Harry Rose." The article notes that "Police Station" aired on KTLA on October 8, 1959, from 10:00pm–10:30pm.
3. Grant, Hank (1958-09-17). "TV Review: Police Station". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 151, no. 35. p. 9. ProQuest 2338098304.
  The review is of Police Station, which aired on KTLA on September 15, 1958, from 10:00pm–10:30pm. The review notes: "A crackling pace that moved as fast as the memorable last act of "The Front Page" highlighted the debut of this new series, worthy of note because here was a live local airer that, production and technical-wise, beamed as far superior to the many live network offerings in the cops-and-robbers vein. Actually, the pace and acting were so professional that possible intent by producer Sandy Howard to tease viewers into wondering whether they were looking at the real thing was negated — even the most naive viewer must have realized he was watching a well-rehearsed play. Realistic setting is that of an average police station, focal point of which is the high desk of the uniformed sgt. (Jack Mann) with adjacent private office sets for detectives (Hank Scott and Gordon Wynn) and a policewoman (Enid Baine). ... Though the pace was admirable, theatrically speaking, it can be slowed a bit on future segments for more realistic effect, if that is the primary aim."
4. "Police Station' On KTLA". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 151, no. 30. 1958-09-10. p. 10. ProQuest 2338106494.
  The article notes: ""Police Station," new Sandy Howard production based on actual files of various police departments throughout the country, makes its debut as a weekly half-hour ept. 15 at 10 p.m. over KTLA. Bill States will direct the live show as scripted by Howard, Enid Baine and Hank Scott, who also doubles as production supervisor."
5. "Sandy Howard Sets Low-Budget Slate". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 8, no. 152. 1958-10-20. p. 3. ProQuest 2338268568.
  The article notes: "In TV field, Howard Prods. has new live, weekly "Police Station" series on at KTLA, with national tape syndication in the wind. On the drawing boards are the two other video properties, a fantasy series, "Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones," pilot of which will be taped at KTTV within the next three weeks ..."
6. "Sandy Howard Hawking 4 Series On Madison Ave". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 154, no. 33. 1959-04-16. p. 10. ProQuest 2338181260.
  The article notes: "TV producer Sandy Howard planed to New York last night to confer with president Hal Hackett of Official Films on distribution of his "Police Station" TV series, of which eight half-hour films are completed."
7. "Official Will Distribute Sandy Howard's 'Police'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 153, no. 44. 1959-02-20. p. 9. ProQuest 2338341392.
  The article notes: "Official Films and Sandy Howard Prods. have set a deal whereby Official will distribute 39 half-hour "Police Station" segments nationally. Segments will be filmed expressly for Official syndication and will go into production next week. Video-taped version currently being aired on KTLA doesn't enter into deal set by Official prexy Harold L. Hackett and Howard."
8. "Best TV Bets Today". Los Angeles Times. 1958-09-15. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Police Station, KTLA (5), 10 p.m. (new). Based upon actual files of various Police Departments throughout the United States, this series depicts what goes on inside a police station, from bookings to investigations. Jack Mann stars as Sgt. Battle."
9. "Previews of Today's TV". Los Angeles Times. 1960-07-26. p. A10. ProQuest 167722243.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Police Station, KTLA (5), 7:30 p.m. The police blotter tonight includes cases of shooting, grand theft and kidnaping."
10. Terrace, Vincent (2011). Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010 (2 ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 843. ISBN 978-0-7864-6477-7. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.
  This is two sentence-entry about the show. The book notes: "Police Station. (Series; Crime Drama; Syn.; 1959). The day-to-day operations of a police station (Precinct 11) of a big city. Real cases are dramatized and followed from the crime to the arrest to the conviction. Cast: Baynes Barron (Sgt. White); Henry Beckman (Sgt. Stan Albertson); Roy Wright (Det. Pat Green); Larry Kerr (Det. Chuck Mitchell)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Police Station to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Bensin (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Pinging Longhair (talk · contribs), who created the article. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's comment. --Bensin (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard found clear evidence this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Grafton Rogers

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

Biography of a person not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The claim here is that he was an Assistant Secretary of State, but there are numerous problems with reifying that into an "inherent" notability claim: firstly, it's not a cabinet-level position that would satisfy NPOL #1 in and of itself, but a bureaucratic position where he would have to be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing; secondly, there are a few dozen assistant secretary of state positions for different areas of expertise in the US State Department, not just one; thirdly, neither the overview United States Assistant Secretary of State nor any of the spinoff articles for the individual positions list his name at all, and even the one acceptable source in the article just says he was an assistant secretary of state without clarifying assistant secretary of state for what either.
And for sourcing, we have two primary sources that are not support for notability at all and just one obituary in a legitimate WP:GNG-worthy newspaper upon his death, which is a start but not in and of itself enough.
For added bonus, this was first created by an editor who's long since been blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing, and already had an arbitration ban on creating new articles, in part (but not exclusively) because of his persistence in creating articles without regard to Wikipedia notability standards, even before he was permamently blocked.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one newspaper obituary for GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After analyzing the sources available on newspapers.com, this is what I came to: ~~as far as I can see, there is no source besides the NYT obit that offers WP:SIGCOV~~. However, there are hundreds or thousands of mentions on newspapers.com; while this normally wouldn't confer notability, these mentions span 50 years, from 1919 to his death in 1971. In conjunction with a New York Times obit that was published 40 years after his serving as assistant secretary of state (1931-1933), there tell me that there is an indication of notability here. In addition to his role in the state department, he was on the Hoover Commission, was the primary contributor to the founding of Rocky Mountain National Park, and is a consistently cited source regarding the wartime activities of OSS, in addition of course to his academia roles. There are indications on GBooks that offline literary sources exist. Curbon7 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right after I hit publish, I found the WP:SIGCOV on him that I knew had to exist: [4]. Curbon7 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has sources that make support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Aside from the standard media coverage. IrishOsita (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ahmad Rashad#Broadcasting and television career. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Access with Ahmad Rashad

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

Deprodded with addition of a source, but it's just a press release from a sports site. No further sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Basketball. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ahmad Rashad#Broadcasting and television career per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ahmad Rashad#Broadcasting and television career'. No significant coverage. Only thing I could find on Newspapers.com was TV listings. There is no independently sourced text to merge.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of French Polynesia

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

Deprodded without comment. Still completely unsourced, unused, un-maintained, and mostly composed of redlinks. There are far too many of these lists at AFD for there not to be a consensus by now; these lists are entirely unwanted and do not meet WP:SALAT especially absent any sources or indication that it's a notable topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: my deprod rationale is in the template at the top of the article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has a distressingly high number of redlinks, which also leads to questions of are all bluelinks to the right person. This is a trivial subject, there is no justification for listing every person ever portrayed on stamps. Beyond this, if there is any encyclopedic value it would be found from listing by year and who is portrayed, but even there we have to ask, why are people on stamps a notable subject, but not other things pictured on stamps? We have no clear answer. There are not sources, let alone the needed reliable sources, backing this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question There are hundreds of similar lists: All pages with titles beginning with List of people on the postage stamps of. What is the proposed criteria for which to keep? ~Kvng (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We need substantial coverage of the topic. This means journa articles or books that cover the topic specifically and hopefully give a general summary of the matter plus sources. Sources that say "Abrhama Lincoln appeared on a postage stamp of Taiwan pictured with Chiang Kai-shek" are not enough, sources that mention by name 2 people who appeared on the postage stamps of Israel, vaguely refer to 2 others without bothering to name them, and then list a place or two on those postage stamps while discussing Kibbutz and Israel, are not enough, and I could if I thought more come up with more such things. We need substnatial, reliable 3rd party sources that say substantive things about this topic, and to justify these list articles they need to completely list every case of every person who has appeared on those stamps. So we need to find a source that is reliable, secondary and substnatial in its coverage of people on postage stamps of French Polynesia, that lists every single person, and we need to find a few more sources that at least address the people on the postage stamps of French Polynesia as a group, even if they do not quite name all of them. These need to be coverage of just the people on the postage stamps, and to be completely ignoring all non-person postage stamps of French Polynesia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We currently have no sources on this article at all. We would need sources that give us something on each individual here, otherwise we should delete all the redlinks and rename this to "notable people on the postage stamps of French Polynesia" because per policy in general we do not include non-notable people on lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert it sounds like your proposal is to stricly apply notability criteria individually to each of these list articles. If done properly, I assume that would be a significant undertaking. In any case, we may have trouble reaching consensus on a criteria as TenPoundHammer and BD2412 seem to make a more blanket assessment of the whole family of lists. ~Kvng (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no question that lots of people have been on postage stamps. What hasn't been proven is why this is a valid topic per WP:SALAT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could see it being proveable for one place if we have sources showing this, but that would only apply to that one place, not to any other place. For example, the US has put pictures of children on postage stamps just because they won some art competition sponsored by the post office. This in no way shows they are notable, and long term I see no beenfit in even listing their names. The US also put a picture with Jean Baptiste Charbonneau on a postage stamp, but it was a picture of Lewis and Clark biding farewell to the Charbonneua family. What if we had a postage stamp of the Obama family in the White House, that would not justify an article on each member of the family pictured, and would probably not justify a list item on all of them. Some people are on US postage stamps because they were subjects of a portrait painter, and the stamps were about the portrait painter, not really who his portraits were of. Things like this tell me we should not have a list for US postage stamps at all because inclusion is trivial, but there may be some other country somewhere that uses stricted criteria and for which a list can be reliably sourced. However keep in mind just because we can source the contents of a list does not mean the list itself is notable enough to create as an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it is unlikely that we can get consensus that All pages with titles beginning with List of people on the postage stamps of do not meet WP:SALAT so we can't delete this one or the others based on TenPoundHammer's blanket assertion. I also think it will be quite a task to assess each of these independently. We're probably going to end up deleting some and retaining others just based on which way the AfD and PROD winds are blowing as deletionists work their way through the list. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - We should not have articles that stand for 19 years with no sources. We should not have long, drawn out discussions on such articles with people arguing keep who fail to produce any sources. None of these lists meet our guidelines for lists. Postage stamps and postal history of French Polynesia is a much better way to cover anything here that is of actual note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done some reading and I don't see how specifically this list runs against anything in WP:SALAT. I wouldn't object to merging this list into Postage stamps and postal history of French Polynesia but I'm not sure that's a clear improvement and we may have trouble applying this approach to other lists. ~Kvng (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Condorcet

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

I found no significant coverage and the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia Wikipedia has none as well. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Portugal. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, No Independent reliable sources available to cite. Grabup (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the indepdent reliable sources that need to be the backbone of any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey Harris

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. A WP:BEFORE did not pull up anything that would pass GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not pass GNG. We have finally realized that not every person who kicked a pall around on the court and got paid money to do so for a few days is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG.Mahdiar86 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tebwaia Baikawa

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial and substantial coverage is missing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - evidently fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn and speedied as I subsequently rediscovered the existence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Edwards (politician) from 2021, which was about the same person, by the same creator, and was virtually the same article apart from a few insignificant wording changes. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Edwards

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

WP:BLP of an officeholder at the county level of politics, not well-referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, politicians at the local level of office don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, or even just because they can make a claim of the "first member of an underrepresented minority group to accomplish this not inherently notable thing in one specific county" variety -- officeholders at the county commission level need to demonstrate either that they had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the county commission itself (e.g. having previously served as a state legislator), or that they have a credible claim to nationalized significance that would make them markedly more special than most other county commissioners.
But neither of those things have been demonstrated here, and the sourcing is a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (raw tables of election results, staff profiles and press releases on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, her own LinkedIn, a YouTube video) with a smattering of purely run of the mill local media coverage that isn't enough to nationalize her significance.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing as a county commissioner. If she'd been the first African-American woman ever elected to any county commission anywhere in the entire United States, then there might be grounds for a Wikipedia article — but not just because she was the first African-American woman in one county. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alabama. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Per Spiderone's comment, no indication that the coverage for the name actually applies to this subject, given the divergent details. Therefore, no indication that GNG is met for this subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Dimov

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

His 2 professional games a decade ago are, at best, a very weak presumption of notability. None of the sources in the article demonstrate the level of coverage for WP:GNG and Google News and DDG failed to yield any significant coverage of this footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems that Dimov has had a substantial managerial career too. [5] talks about his coaching activities and [6] talks about him running a tournament. Searching for "АЛЕКСАНДЪР ДИМОВ" ФУТБОЛНАТА (Aleksandar Dimov football) gives many other results too. EternalNomad (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has quite a common name, what gives us the impression that this Aleksandar Dimov is the same person? In fact, given this translation of one of the articles written in 2013, I don't think that they are the same. The second sentence translates (according to Google) as "This was stated for Radio Shumen by the coach Alexander Dimov, who a few years ago returned the local team to the "B" football group." It seems unlikely, given that the Dimov subject to this AfD would have been 27 at the time that this article was written, that this article is referring to the same person here. Soccerway and Football Database both verify that he had a playing career (and was not on the books of Shumen), albeit a low level one, in the years leading up to that 2013 article being written so it seems unlikely, but not impossible, that the two Dimovs are the same person. We as editors must be careful about WP:FRANKENSTEIN so unless a source explicitly states that this semi-pro goalkeeper and this Shumen-based coach are the same person, we should presume that they are not. I am also not seeing any WP:SIGCOV in the sources presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no references that show notability. Fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have no clear evidence that this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Fade258 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Energy

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

Fails to show WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALS. Fade258 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Huge impact factor, in several highly selective databases, clear pass of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly good impact factor and other factors as described by Randykitty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaktree b (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The journal is indexed in Scopus and passes WP:NJOURNALS. ~ Nanosci (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep. I know we're supposed to WP:AGF but I genuinely am finding it hard to believe that the nominator even read WP:NJOURNALS before starting this nomination given just how erroneous it it. Top 10% impact factors in physical chemistry and applied physics. Top 5% impact factor in materials science. It has been indexed in no less than 8 selective databases. 300,000+ citations since being established 10 years ago. This is all information available from the article and from the journal's home page. This is such an obvious keep it isn't even funny. (Full disclosure, I came here following a question by the creator of this article at the teahouse) 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RK. Clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Pass WP:NJournals Owlf 📪 13:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Fade258:, don(t you think it's time to withdraw this nom? --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for this action and agree to withdraw. From next time I don't make silly mistake like this. Fade258 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Good faith arguments taking both positions on whether sourcing is sufficient. Star Mississippi 20:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Getty

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Getty. Previous discussion was avoided by the article creator by turning it into a G7 deletion, but less than a week later they simply recreate the article (identical? I can't tell). Apparently this doesn't apply for a G4 speedy deletion, which seems like a shortcoming of the system. Anyway, I guess this means that the previous AfD should be reopened, so you may consider this a procedural AfD opening.

Previous AfD nomination reason was

"Promotional article on a Non notable socialite and philanthropist who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus fails GNG and fails WP:ANYBIO also, the plethora of sources are a mirage to inundate the inexperienced new page reviewer. A before search turns up nothing concrete. They are model too but WP:ENT isn’t met. " Fram (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, e.g. the sources in the article include:
- Don't I Know You From the Party Pages? (NYT, 2006, contextualizes her work as a model with biographical and related information)
- Pacific Heights (W Magazine, 2006, includes in-depth biographical information)
- Stunning Pacific Heights mansion where Vanessa Getty once lived asks $30 million (SFGate, 2018, includes biographical information)
- Billy Getty Pops the Question / He presented the ring before Christmas (SFGate, 1998, more biographical information)
- Family Ties (NYT, 2001, "with the latter married to the modelesque society-column habitué Vanessa Getty")
- Vanessa Getty, Trevor Traina Named Honorary Co-chairs of San Francisco Gala (WWD, 2015)
- Dior’s Grown-Up ‘Prom’ in San Francisco (WSJ, 2015, article preview includes mention of "honorary co-chair Vanessa Getty")
- Celebrating The Fashionable and Philanthropic Force that is Vanessa Getty (Vanity Fair, 2018, "This month, we pay homage to seasoned fashionista, entrepreneur, and dedicated philanthropist, Vanessa Getty.")
- How San Francisco’s Wealthiest Families Launched Kamala Harris (Politico, 2019, mentions include, "The group included Vanessa Getty, by then one of Harris' closest pals")

The citation formatting in the article could be improved to make this more clear, and the article can be further developed due to the combined depth of information available from these sources. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion on notability, but "the plethora of sources are a mirage to inundate the inexperienced new page reviewer" in the previous AfD by Celestina007 might reasonably lead an inexperienced editor to feel browbeaten into requesting deletion, and then change their mind. The fact they restarted it under the same user name suggests good faith. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more likely that it can be confusing to editors that there are nearly 20 sources here being linked to Wikipedia to establish notability when nearly any of them amount to much of anything notable about the topic. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also - tagging the original nominator so they can participate in this discussion @Celestina007:. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in-depth articles are available and there are a lot of them. Following are some selective ones:
- Givers & Shakers: Vanessa Getty, Patron Saint of Animals in 7x7 (magazine)
- Celebrating The Fashionable and Philanthropic Force that is Vanessa Getty in Vanity Fair (magazine)
- Pacific Heights in W (magazine)
- Covered in Growing Up Getty book
- Covered in detail in Claiborne Swanson Frank's book

Thank you! Louis Puchner (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be almost entirely made up of interviews, primary sources or articles about the topic's in-laws. Source 1 is trivial. The article isn't about her, lacks sigcov. Source 2 is about the topic's family. There are a couple sentences about her. This article probably has the most depth, if we can construe it as that, than any of the other articles. Source 3 is not about the topic, it's about a house. Source 4 is a trivial mention midway down the page. Source 5, trivial mention again. Source 6, interview on a blog. Source 7, like source 3, 5 and 8, is in the SF Gate. This is important because multiple articles from one source counts as.... one source. For example, if there are 100 articles in the New York Times about the topic that does not mean the topic is notable enough for inclusion. The topic must have multiple RS. Regardless, the article isn't about her anyways. It's about her wedding and marriage to Billy Getty. I think it's important to note at this time that these people are relatives of J. Paul Getty and the Getty Family. This family is of note. They are frequently covered in the media. Vanessa Jarman, by marriage to Billy Getty, doesn't appear to be notable at all. Source 8, another SF Gate article about the Getty's, not Vanessa. Source 9, article in the NY Times about the Getty's, not Vanessa Jarman. Source 10, same online blog as Source 6. Interview, and primary source. Non-notable publication. Source 11, trivial one line mention. Source 12, trivial one line mention. No sig cov. Source 13 does not exist. Source 14 and 15 is source 10 repeated twice. Source 16 is a Vanity Fair post that we could count as 1 source. It's by far the best source of all of the sources as it is the only article that is about her. Except... there is no editor on it. No writer. There is no byline, or that a reporter or a writer at Vanity Fair wrote it.. There is only a phrase at the top that says PRODUCED BY VANITY FAIR STUDIOS WITH SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, leading me to believe that this is likely an advertisement, or promoted/paid content. Source 16, she gets a trivial mention yet again. The source 16 article, as Michael Kruse of Politico wrote it, was about Kamala Harris and "oil heir Billy Getty"'s connections and resources. On that note, I'm going to point to WP:BIOFAMILY. This topic, as it stands, does not meet the GNG requirements for an independent article.
Keep per Beccaynr. There is a lot of coverage to sift through, but FWIW she is easily notable and passes WP:GNG. It doesn't matter what's cited in the article rather it is about her notability, so WP:NEXIST applies. More sources to expand the article:

307 results in SFGATE

254 results in WWD magazine

60 results in Vogue

31 results in W Magazine

It is pertinent to note that a lot more coverage is available in archives under Vanessa Jarman name. The rationale above my comment isn't policy-based as it stands. 92.22.16.106 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions are policy based, as many of the articles are mere one line mentions of her or about her in-laws, the Getty's. If there were 3 articles in RS with sig cov, I'm happy to change my vote, but a mere one line sentence or a photo of her at a Gala or something like that won't suffice. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete the discussion above points out many sources, but the article is more of a resume, she went to school, was a dancer and is involved in a few charities. I'd expect the article to be more fleshed out if she was truly notable, I think it's mostly "ref stacking" with trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by a new editor, and in this discussion, sources with more in-depth coverage have been identified that can be used to expand the article. WP:DINC, and the state of this article is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. I don't think deleting it is a solution when sources have been uncovered and very likely that page will be fleshed out if kept. Meets WP:BASIC. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:A1AB:12C4:EC87:8DE0 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has yet to be 3 independent standalone articles posted in this discussion with SIGCOV about this topic. All of the sources included are trivial, a picture of the topic, or covering the topic's notable family or spouse; not the topic itself. If you have 3 articles about this topic in RS that are not paid for content, post them here. The anonymous IP "Keep" crowd is heavily construed on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And since this article has been created, deleted and created again, I think it would be prudent to finally follow up with 3:REFS to keep it. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is a Getty, and part of the notable family with her independent notability supported, e.g. by the sources identified at the beginning of the discussion, as well as the wide coverage identified later in the discussion, and the WP:BASIC guideline, which includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - the secondary context and commentary available about her supports her notability and can allow this article to be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability requirements, per cited references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Ihler Institute

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

There's absolutely nothing to suggest this organization is notable in any way. They only got some visibility because of their analysis of one manifesto, and even then, I didn't hear of them until I started reading the 2022 Buffalo shooting article. There's not much of a storied history to this organization outside of that. Love of Corey (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sweden. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while there is plenty of information on its notable founders and the organisation was mentioned by several reliable sources before, I've been unable to find any information in said sources that would allow for expansion of the article. Fails ORGDEPTH. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Passing mentions in several articles by RS, but not enough. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pushpa: The Rise (soundtrack). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oo Antava Oo Oo Antava

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

~~There is not a reason why as to why this article exists nor are there enough references given for the song Ranjith207 (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)~~ (sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This song received a lot of coverage and was also played at the Ultra Miami concert 2022. It was trending on the YouTube charts for about 21 days and was at first place for many music charts. —-Saaki2804 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the references. There is no reference saying this is notable. Stupid song from Devi Sri Prasad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.166.244.131 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This song is a chartbaster and thousands of newspapers and online portals have made citations or articles on this. Abbasulu (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Do not meet WP:NSONG. 2409:4073:185:F98B:0:0:21F:C8B0 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bunch of hits furhter down in GNews, not sure how reliable they are, most appear to be tabloids. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pushpa: The Rise (soundtrack). Does not meet WP:NSONG, as it lacks the sources which are not just reliable but also significant and indepedent with coverage on the song itself (not album or film) -- Choose🎵 (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSONG per nom. No need of this rubbish article in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.166.245.75 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pushpa: The Rise (soundtrack) per WP:ATD-R; does not meet WP:NSONG independently -- Ab207 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSONG independently. It's not the way of writhing an article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.166.244.131 (talk)
Strong delete: Fails WP:NSONG independently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:4D9F:87B6:0:0:EF48:4A12 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strongly Keep~~ Abbasulu (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC) (duplicate !vote stricken off — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minnal Murali. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaison Varghese

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

Fictional character with just one film appearance (Minnal Murali). Does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks independent coverage in reliable sources including enough real-world/out-of-universe perspective. Most of the content is sourced from interviews/primary sources which do not establish notability.

Stand-alone article is not warranted in any case per WP:NOPAGE as it can be covered in the film article -- Ab207 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. Ab207 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnal Murali and add all information in Production section per WP:NOPAGE. DareshMohan (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DareshMohan. Fails WP:GNG. Add all information to Minnal Murali. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to build a consensus. Article fails the WP:GNG and could be reasonably deleted, but there is a valid merge target, and someone may find a way to WP:VERIFY some information. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernestine Fu

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

Doesn't meet notability. Could use expansion, but otherwise the only thing notable about this person was appearing on Forbes 30 Under 30 a decade ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswix (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she's notable, one mention in Forbes, that doesn't look like and advertorial in GNews and one in a peer-reviewed journal, [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs some work but alongside reliable sources such as 1 and 2 already on the article, it's easy to find more sources for example Business Insider 3 and 4. Proquest gives lots of hits eg The importance of being earnest in The Business Times and also she is now apparently an adjunct professor 5. Mujinga (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
saw this comment thread and found a few more reliable sources and more recent news/highlights that I contributed to the article Hjd555 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that that adjunct professor position has resulted in few citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at that google scholar I think there's another E Fu who is a scientist and the citations got rolled together. But this Fu doesn't need to pass NSCHOLAR becuase she passes GNG already. I just meant our article should include her current position. Mujinga (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A one-time media blitz for a student entrepreneur does not add up to long-term notability, and her subsequent career as a capitalist and part-time academic does not appear notable at all, neither under WP:GNG for the business work nor under WP:PROF for the academic side. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first block of refs seems to be mostly alumni news but no real secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She appears generally notable per references such as the Vanity Fair article and others. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cheshire East Council. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire East Council bullying and misconduct allegations

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

Essentially a POV fork from Cheshire East Council and trying to fluff it up with the viral Handforth Parish Council incident. Misconduct happens all the time in random local councils. I argue that most of this article falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage. The little of it that is still relevant should be concisified and put into Cheshire East Council. Ovinus (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The parish council incident can be included on the article on Handforth Town Council page, and the rest condensed and put onto the Cheshire East Council page, per nom. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alerting Awoma, Pomegranate and Rimagi, who have been involved in discussions on the article's talk page. QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and providing that Jackie Weaver has the authority to delete it too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahahahaha. Hopefully she boots any keep !voters out of the call. Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion as the article has useful content/history that should be preserved as it may be merged with other articles. Furthermore, merge and delete as the nominator appears to be suggesting isn't an option because of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia attribution requirements. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect works just as well, I'd support that. In any case, the huge amount of coverage garnered by a funny video does not imply that we should have much stuff on bullying in a borough. Perhaps two paragraphs on the borough's page—one for the video and one for the allegations. It went viral because people were bored in lockdown, not because it deserves our serious coverage, and we should have some editorial discretion there. (Also, I know you're not arguing that it deserves a long article; just wanted to put a longer form rationale since it's relisted.) Ovinus (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheshire East Council and selective merge to both that page and Handforth Town Council. I don't really see a need to cover this on a separate page, while it probably has enough coverage to deserve inclusion in some form on the page of the council. I share concerns about WP:NPOV, though I think that having emphasis on selective in selective merge could help to remedy any issues with bias in how the article is written. This would also satisfy the legal requirements associated with WP:CWW, per Buidhe. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus primarily as there isn't a consensus around the significance of the book source due to editors' inability to access and assess it. I don't see this changing with another relist. Star Mississippi 02:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K. Balapatabendi

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

Fails WP: ANYBIO - non notable public servant - permanent secretary is not a notable position- it is a political appointee. Similarly a High Commissioner is not a notable position and in most cases is a political appointment. Neither reference provides any significant coverage about the individual. Dan arndt (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, Australia, and New Zealand. Dan arndt (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. No inherent notability. I couldn't find any RSs searching via Google. Cabrils (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I interpret Wikipedia_talk:Diplomatic_notability to mean ambassadors and High Commissioners are generally notable. I'm happy to be corrected, of course.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ari T. Benchaim: you are referring to an essay/discussion piece not an adopted policy or guideline. Essentially individuals are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. None of the sources provided even come close to satisfy those requirements. Dan arndt (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable, in fact many ambassador articles have been deleted. This one does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think his involvement in negotiations during the civil war make him a notable individual. There appears to be substantial discussion in this light in A. S. Balasingham, Ē. Es Pālaciṅkam The Politics of Duplicity: Re-visiting the Jaffna Talks (2000) [8]. Google books brings up a couple of other hits for "K. Balapatabendi", "Kusum Balapatabendi". There's some indication here that he's been involved in corruption scandals (although that particular news article is about his son). If someone is able to search Sinhala and Tamil sources, that would be helpful. The chairmanship of Sri Lankan Airlines bolsters the case for notability. Furius (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The most senior civil servant in a whole country is obviously inherently notable and there are enough sources per Furius. Reference to the diplomatic notability guideline is a red herring in this case. Atchom (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the permanent secretary position is not automatically or inherently notable. The references/sources provided in the article are either broken or no longer exist. The Colombo Telegraph source that Furius cited is about the individual's son. Being the chairman of Sri Airlines doesn't make the individual notable either - Still fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO - needs to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - not because an editor says he is. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Furius and per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (With respect for your experience:) Furius' position is dismantled by Dan arndt's and LibStar's responses and comments. If you would like to challenge them please do so but asserting a vote purely on a point made earlier in the discussion that has since been refuted is not constructive to the discussion. The claim of WP:CSB here is spurious and a straw man argument. Cabrils (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't anywhere close to being "dismantled". Neither of them has said a word about the book by Balasingham and Es Pālaciṅkam, or any of the other books that have coverage of this person. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What books are you referring to? If there are reliable sources in books that include independent, significant coverage of the subject, then please add them to the page, doing so would likely resolve this discussion and I for one would reverse my vote. I too can see a list in Google books (that took about 8 seconds to create) that presumably Furius is referring to, but I can't easily access the content of any of them to make an assessment about the reliability of the content, and doing that real research is what is required here to have a meaningful discussion. Cabrils (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the book that I mentioned: A. S. Balasingham, Ē. Es Pālaciṅkam The Politics of Duplicity: Re-visiting the Jaffna Talks (2000), which is about a set of negotiations which Balapatabendi led. The fact that you can't access the book is not a valid reason for dismissing it (WP:OSO). Nor are we required to fix up the article in order to prevent deletion (WP:IMPATIENT). Furius (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Furius: the reference in the book is not significant coverage, merely a mention in passing. What are the other books that you are referring to - happy to check them as well. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather strange that one mention should cover 37 separate pages. Are you sure that you have read enough of the book? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by TruTV#Original programming 2. ✗plicit 11:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Pursuit (2006 TV series)

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

One of 146 articles deprodded due to rapid-fire nomination; the rest can be viewed at this userpage, along with various other extremely low-quality articles. Tagged as unsourced since 2017, but it has never had any real sourcing since the creation in 2006. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Law, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TruTV#Original programming 2. There's a short paragraph in a 2010 Variety article about TruTV, but I'm not seeing much more. Nfitz (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. No proof of sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing to a lack of in-depth coverage about this series. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Najla Mahfouz

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The coverage isn't a lot, but I think enough to keep:

She's mentioned three times in Muslims and the New Information and Communication Technologies: Notes from an Emerging and Infinite Field. (2014). Germany: Springer Netherlands.
The article https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1366927 is all about her, and a secondary source (talks about her books, mentioning she published 48, her editor job, her art)
https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1254868 (includes a quote, but still editorial about her writing) CT55555 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep, on the face of it, Draft at the very least It is claimed that this lady is the deputy editor of the biggest newspaper in Egypt, which would make her the equivalent of someone like Joseph Kahn of the NYT, and nobody would doubt his right to be on Wikipedia, plus a prolific author and an artist who has had solo shows at recognised galleries like the Cairo Atelier (which should have an article whilst we're on the subject). The problems here are the usual ones with people from developing countries, they just have a lot less media of the kind that Wikipedia approves of leading to all sorts of biases in our coverage (hence Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) of people from those countries, aside from our general coverage bias against women. This editor seems to be working in good faith to fix some of those biases, and should be encouraged. I imagine Mahfouz has good coverage in Arabic sources even if not in English (so I can't really help directly), and then you have the issues of different transliterations being possible - I've moved the article to Naglaa Mahfouz to match her Wikidata entry at wikidata:Q107056752 and the usage on the government fine art website. I know we're all busy and everything but given that this kind of article is likely to have systemic bias affecting easy referencing, surely the better approach would be to have some awareness of the systemic bias issues and move to draft rather than delete? To be honest, given that the editor concerned appears to be inexperienced but editing in good faith in an area where our coverage is poor, deletion rather than draft comes across IMO as rather WP:BITEY.

And just as an example of that inexperience, I encountered them because they were capitalising all the words in categories. You've got HotCat, which would fix those kinds of problems if you let it, but instead chose to delete all the categories and not replace them. At the very least in that situation I would try a HotCat "edit" to give it a chance to fix it rather than removal, particularly if you were going to leave the article completely uncategorised. Le Deluge (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with what Le Deluge said. One of my frustrations with Wikipedia are the frequent attempts to delete articles about people from outside the U.S.A. and Europe when the article subjects meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Yes, the article needs work but that's not a reason to delete it.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there someone to look for non-English sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It is likely that she is notable. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:A1AB:12C4:EC87:8DE0 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability guidelines and can be expanded upon and improved. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bailout. ✗plicit 11:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bailout Capitalism

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

One editor's Original Research WP:OR. One source is an advocacy organization/think tank (Center for Economic and Policy Research), NOT a Reliable Source WP:RS nor Independent Source WP:IS. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I came here expecting to vote delete and was searching google books expecting to be able to declare this was a made-up term, but it's not and there are multiple books writing about Bailout Capitalism (Link: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Bailout+Capitalism%22). Also, nom, please let the creating editor know via their talk page. I'm going to edit the article to make it a bit more wikipedia normal now. CT55555 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: Just as a note, Google Books will show books that don't actually include a phrase, even when the search term is in quotes. Among publications that are in that search, there's a trivial mention in a 1975 edition of The Nation, a self-published book, a book that has "Bailout" and "Capitalism" as adjacent list items but doesn't actually call anything "bailout capitalism", "bailout, capitalism", a trivial mention in a Bristol University Press book, another edition of that self-published book I mentioned earlier, the use of the phrase as a criticism of bailouts in a Princeton University Press book, a book from a military history publisher that likewise appears to be using the term as a way of criticizing bailouts rather than a way to describe an economy, a speech by Ralph Nader, a use of the term to characterize the GM bailout, and another statement that was given in Congress. A handful of books that use a phrase isn't exactly WP:SIGCOV of the concept that the phrase points to (which in this case appears to be several different concepts throughout history), nor a reason to split this off from the Bailout article when the amount of sourced substance that can be written about this is quite lacking. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, all the books that my search turned up are passing mentions. Currently your redirect/merge is agreeable, although I'd suggest as this is a form of capitalism, the redirect should be to there. I think there may be scholarly articles on that, but haven't found it yet. CT55555 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see any strong sources that are treating it as a distinct form of capitalism. The term's use as a criticism of bailouts might make it worthwhile redirecting to a section, but I really don't think that there are RS saying that this is a distinct form of capitalism. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Bailout. I don't really see much substantially about this that indicates that the topic is separate; the description of the economic state that calls for a bailout can be covered well under that article, which already discusses the themes of bailouts as well as theory thereof. But I just don't see a good reason to fork off an article at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge as suggested by Mhawk10. I don't see how "bailout capitalism" is anything distinct from "bailout." Bearian (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Bailout. I came here expecting to vote keep, as the contents of the article are sufficiently notable. However given it's relevance to Bailout, I think it is more useful to merge than redirect, a separate section within that article seems most appropriate. Having two articles does seem to duplicate the subject slightly. MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Farid

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

Being an astronaut candidate is not in itself sufficient to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Reads like a résumé more than anything. – Ploni (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-leaning. As WP:SCHOLAR, notability is not established. I don't see him selected for any mission or formally selected as an astronaut candidate, either - can't find him [[here or elsewhere.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see him quoted in reliable independent sources fails WP:N PaulPachad (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-leaning - He's in Arabic language news as follows:

here primary source
The only Egyptian and Arab in the German Space (does include an interview)
Egyptian astronaut Ahmed Farid: NASA borrowed the name “Mars” from the ancient Egyptians I think this is significant coverage

In summary two of these involve him, but there is also details that are editorial, so I think overall this could justify a keep. I am unqualified to assess Arabic language media, so I'm assuming they are reliable, they seem reliable to me. CT55555 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of those links are either direct interview of him, or just as a minor figure. I do not know about anything about Egypt; I am from Nepal myself, but believe me when I say that in developing countries like ours, a person would get an interview and be featured in multiple news articles just for getting a scholarship in MIT (which I have once witnessed) and then fade into obscurity after that. Having said that, it would probably be better if someone from Wikiproject Egypt could provide a comment or information in this regard. Shirsakbc (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the hits I get are for an artist with the same name. Unsure how notable this fellow is. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too few sources in Scholar, news, etc. --mikeu ^talk 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad McCrorey

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

fail to see how McCroery is notable as a tourism chief of a small town, he doesn't meet NPOL in the slightest, and I'm not even sure what the claim is here. He's had a few interviews but the rest of the sources are unreliable or not in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There actually seems to be quite a bit of substantial coverage out there, including this Forbes article and this Atlanta Black Star article, that should be added to the article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Contributor pieces aren't reliable per WP:FORBESCON and the Atlanta Blackstar article is hardly independent coverage. Not to mention they're both basically the same snippets as the New York Daily News article, which again, isn't coverage of him and lastly the Blackstar isn't written by their staff (if they even have any), it's by a "Digital content creator". PRAXIDICAE💕 16:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the Atlanta Blackstar article is hardly independent coverage. What do you mean by this? Also, there is no policy that I know of that an article must be written by staff. Many publications use freelance writers. And what's wrong with being a "digital content creator?" Anyone writing for digital news is a digital content creator, are they not? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our entire WP:RS policy covers this and we do not consider contributor pieces to be reliable sources, that applies beyond just Forbes. And no, PR marketers aka "digital content creators" aren't beacons of journalism. In any case, all of these "articles" about him, even if they were reliable, which they are not, amount to nothing more than WP:BLP1E and hardly even that. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our entire WP:RS policy covers this and we do not consider contributor pieces to be reliable sources, that applies beyond just Forbes Do you mind pointing to where it says that? I'm having trouble finding anything about freelance vs staff in general. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the entire discussion surrounding WP:FORBESCON. Start there, then read WP:RS, WP:V and many discussions on WP:RSN. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's nothing that says that? That's all I wanted to know. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally 14+ different discussions on FORBESCON alone that discuss contributor pieces at length. Pretending it doesn't say that is disruptive. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those discussions are about Forbes.com in particular, and about it being a WP:SELFPUBLISH blog. That does not apply to Atlanta Black Star, or the NYT, or anyone else that uses freelance reporting. It sounds like you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about NYT, which doesn't even appear in this article. As far as self published blogs, WP:SPS also applies but no, we do not accept contributor pieces unless they are proven SMEs in which case we attribute what is said and also WP:RSOPINION applies, which you'd know if you bothered to read any of the discussions that were linked, not to mention WP:UCG which seems the most obvious. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may need to consider these sources as they pass for reliable sources [9] [10] under WP:AFSL Kwamevaughan (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nope, this is an op ed. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sent two links which pass WP:AFSL you however ignored [11]. I don't know what the end goal is here but I believe the article has been properly sourced and just as @Pyrrho the Skipper said you're just exhibiting a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT instead of a fair judgement. Kwamevaughan (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been properly sourced and thus passes for WP:GNG. The sources provided are credible under WP:RS and WP:AFSL : [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] As such, if there are no opposing comments, then it is best to keep the article. Otherwise, it will be relisted. Further comments should be discussed on the Talk Page. Kwamevaughan (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.com_contributors

I saw New York Daily News and ABC World News listed as acceptable sources where Forbes contributor was not accepted.

Subject has New York Daily News article which entire article was about subject being in Africa during the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-ghana-harlem-man-stuck-overseas-20200417-qa5pxcbsszgvdd6gaxe5lwomqa-story.html

Subject has 2 separate ABC World News articles with several paragraphs dedicated to him near the end of the articles not just a passing mention discussing racism in America.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/apartheid-jim-crow-george-floyds-death-reverberated-africa/story?id=71556630

https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-americans-leaving-homes-start-black-communities/story?id=73344171

When I searched

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Africa/Africa_Sources_List

Under Ghana they are 8 news affiates listed as credible sites subject has articles about becoming a chief in Ghana in 4 of the 8.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/rashad-mccrorey-installed-tourism-chief-of-elmina/

https://www.gbcghanaonline.com/general/mccrorey-made-tourism-chief/2022/

https://citinewsroom.com/2022/04/black-american-installed-as-nsarahwehene-of-iture-promises-to-invest-in-tourism/

https://3news.com/newly-enstooled-tourism-chief-returns-to-us-to-begin-campaign/

I dont believe anything significant needs to be added to the article but here are two more articles not mentioned supporting subject being an authority figure https://www.okayafrica.com/ghana-chief-of-tourism/

https://skift.com/2022/05/09/ghanas-return-tours-tap-celebrity-african-americans-and-overlook-a-reality/

This article passes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline

And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Give Up (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets general notability guidelines, can be expanded per references cited above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. All around terrible discussion. ✗plicit 10:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Samoilenko

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

WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article carries eight sources that seem to provide evidence of notability. —Michael Z. 17:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose he has had a lot of media appearances and it seems he is quite high up within Azov Fourdots2 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article meets WP:GNG and WP:Verifiability. --IgorTurzh (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lot of media appearances. --Alex Blokha (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well documented. Monstarules (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is a pure Nazi and should be erased from wikipedia as well as his battalion from Mariupol. --Frische Frische (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an argument for deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep many non-independent sources but probably just passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject served as a spokesperson for the soldiers during the siege. He appears on a number of viral YouTube videos, each with close to a million hits. In addition to some coverage in press, this provides a sufficient notability for the person. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lots of the !votes above don't seem to be based in policy, but I do have some concerns about whether or not the individual is WP:BLP1E. Is there any coverage of this individual outside of the context of the Ukrainian defense of the Azovstal Steel Plant? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need consensus on the notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rondo Energy

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

WP:SERIESA. Notability is very far from established. Overall, this is either WP:GNG non-compliant, or WP:NOTYET. In either case, this right now is a vanity article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:GNG, I would consider notable coverage to include the Verge and TechCrunch sources, established publications that report on climate technologies and startup companies. There is additional notable coverage in other established publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, which can be used here as a source in addition, or instead, or existing sources. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for the opportunity to prepare an updated draft for you or another neutral editor, utilizing additional notable sources and ensuring the article is neutral, drawing only from notable public coverage and secondary sources. There is an emerging market for this new climate technology category -- of which Rondo is one of several notable companies. These new technologies (not uniquely Rondo's) are a matter of public interest and receiving notable coverage. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You appear to have an incomplete understanding of our guidelines and policies. The appropriate guideline for a company/organization is WP:NCORP which includes criteria such as those found in the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created by a connected contributor describing the background and proposition of a start-up company. Inclusion in lists of promising start-ups and funding announcements are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Justine Calma's article in The Verge and John Cox's article about prototype trials are probably the nearest to WP:RS coverage, but are insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. here. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AllyD, I would also assert that Ed Ballard's coverage in the Wall Street Journal would be considered WP:RS coverage on Rondo's page or others, as well as the Fast Company World Changing Ideas award by the Fast Company editorial board. Conner at Bloom Energy (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The connected contributor has been forthcoming, and not tried to hide their connection. The question of notability is a matter of interpretation meaning that it is far from being an absolutely clear cut case of failed notability. The prudent thing to do is keep and improve as needed. Huggums537 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WSJ & Verge pieces are mostly based off company sources, with the independent text mostly talking about the industry in general or competitors, so they would fail WP:ORGIND. The TechCrunch article actually has a bit of independent doubts in the last paragraph, but WP:TECHCRUNCH is not a good source to establish notability. I don't think there is enough here to meet WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 08:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Far from it being a "matter of interpretation", WP:NCORP guidelines can be summarised as requiring multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage (in reliable sources) with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria (all rely entirely on info from the company and their execs with no "Independent Content") and I can't find any that does. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took a look at the WSJ coverage and it's just a founder interview, so fails the independence criterion. I disagree with User:Huggums537 - the criteria are a bright line, and this company doesn't meet it. The connected contributor is why this article on a non-notable company exists, and the direct editing is inappropriate per our COI guidelines, but we don't delete articles to punish people. This article should be deleted because the company (the company, not the industry) does not meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On notability terms, this was a borderline no consensus. But G5 confirmation makes it a clear delete. If an uninvolved editor believes LCN is notable, they're welcome to create an article. Star Mississippi 18:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Change Network

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

I removed the SPEEDY tag because it was contested. I still believe that delete is in order for violation of WP:ADV and promotion, but we should discuss it as a group and come to consensus. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: both the nominator and Praxidicae (talk · contribs) nominated this article at exactly the same time, causing two nominations to open at once. I've tagged the second nom for G6 and ask Praxidicae to participate here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I fail to see how LCN is notable on it's own, this is nothing more than what appears to be PR but I can't find any meaningful in depth coverage and all that appears to be in the article are stories about Ganz or speaking roles/appearances that mention LCN with nothing truly independent. No objection to redirecting to Ganz PRAXIDICAE💕 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of copying the previous comment from the second nomination. This should be considered basic cleanup only.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, CSD could well have been granted for WP:ADV. Salvage option would be redirect to Ganz. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stated I have no objection to redirecting, provided we get consensus so we don't have to keep going through this, obviously. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already nominated this article once for speedy deletion (yesterday) as promotion, and it was quickly deleted. I see it is now back. The tone is still completely wrong, and still reeks of an advert. Redirect to Ganz until something less promotional can be written. A loose necktie (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is is possible to receive more detailed feedback as to how to make the tone right? Thank you 82.222.98.255 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten into a non promotional tone and removed all links redirecting to LCN's website. I hope it's up-to-standard now. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss the changes made by Spongebobsquarepants246. No consensus on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that delete is the only option to deal with promotional tone. It does still need much work even after the latest changes though. Huggums537 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is it possible to give me more specific tips on how to adjust? I rephrased all parts that sounded subjective and removed all hyperlinks. Please let me know how to further edit. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your asking for help. The best advice I can offer is to look at WP:ADV and its subsequent links. I personally tend to prefer editing over deletion as a result. To me, the bulk of the narrative still reads as promotional material (which points to deletion). Others may agree or disagree, which is why we have a forum like this to discuss it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read several articles and rewritten accordingly, removing all subjective language and any links and using a neutral tone instead.

Please let me know if it reads better now. Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's better. Is it enough? Maybe... if consensus is that it passes the notability threshhold, I think we can move the WP:COI concerns to those of editing rather than deletion--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus concerning notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for notability as the NGO is featured as a main item (not just a brief mention) on the Commons Library for social change (an increasingly popular and credible source to all entities and resources related to community organizing)

The organization is also referenced in a credible journal inside a research paper presenting it as the main practitioner and teacher of the Public Narrative practice (the paper's topic) initially produced by LCN's founder, Marshall Ganz.

Multiple independent secondary resources reference and present the organization as appears in the article's references.

The entity's notability is not temporary, as it's active, ongoing and has significant on-ground projects around the world.

Based on these facts, my point of view is that the entity is discussed in reliable independent sources and is notable per se, and has not merely inherited notability from its founder. I wish to note that we should not be inclined to judge it "not notable" just because the founder is notable. An entity could have a notable founder and still be sufficiently notable on its own (even if less than the founder) without having inherited notability.

Thank you. Spongebobsquarepants246 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see notability as a non issue with this article. Just because it needed some editing work for promotional concerns doesn't mean no pass for notability. Those are two different things, and I think the article has now improved enough to make it a workable project. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 as an contribution by a sockpuppet with the only contributions by others being adding or fixing deletion templates. Jumpytoo Talk 01:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument in this case has focused on whether the coverage of the subject is "significant" according to the terms of the General Notability Guideline. Sports figures often receive routine mentions in news coverage of their sport and/or data sources for competition statistics, and this type of coverage is not generally seen as establishing notability. The early discussion was largely a debate over whether there was enough coverage beyond that level to establish the notability of this person. The later participants have clearly weighed in with a consensus that there is not enough significant coverage at this time. Given that this subject is a living person and still active in the sport, that could easily change over time, but for this discussion the result is Delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treyten Lapcevich

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

Fails WP:GNG and ~~WP:NMOTORSPORT~~. Only uses databases as references. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Canada. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he competes at the top level of motorsports in his country. He competed in every race in 2021, finished fifth in the points, and was the series Rookie of the Year. He just won in the series and is on the radar on a major motorsports RS in the United States. Just because the first editor of this article is currently blocked doesn't change the notability of the subject. I contributed to this new article because of the subject has notability far beyond a passing mention or a database entry. Royal broil 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the additional sources added to the article are WP:ROUTINE news reports and do not have any WP:SIGCOV. Subject still fails GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the top level competitors in the highest level of sport in a major country non-notable? Royal broil 01:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what he does, he doesn't meet the general notability guideline. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs such as NMOTORSPORT exist to determine if a subject is likely to meet the GNG. It is not a guarantee either way. Many subjects pass GNG which don't meet their respective SNG, while others who may meet an SNG do not pass the GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the page of the article's creator, Royalbroil, I see that they are no longer blocked. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ - Actually passes WP:NMOTORSPORT 4.1. Lapcevich won a round of a primarily-professional series of significant national importance, also noted by @Royalbroil. I don't see why this fails WP:GNG. If the race itself is notable enough for an article, I don't see why this driver is not. ~XyNq^t_c 16:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this fails WP:GNG. If the race itself is notable enough for an article, I don't see why this driver is not. - Thank you for highlighting a major, major problem within Wikiproject: Motorsport/Wikiproject: NASCAR. The article you link to was made by the same user who made this article, who made the article with absolutely zero regard for notability requirements. We have many editors who do such things and we simply cannot send all of these articles to AfD faster than what they are made. The fact that a massive cleanup is needed in this wikiproject should not be used as an argument in this particular AfD and I implore the closing admin to reject this argument. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I wasn't aware that article was created by the same person, I just saw it existed. In the case of that then, this article probably could be deleted along with the race article. I also notice all other links in the results list are redirects to the track itself and not synopses of the race. However, I do maintain that the driver in question does pass NMOTORSPORT, but needs more biographical info to constitute an article. ~XyNq^t_c 16:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been improved by the article creator, therefore I change my vote back to Keep. ~XyNq^t_c 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Are there any changes that could be made to the article that could have it pass any necessary guidelines? Thanks! Nascarbball24 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nascarbball24: If you can find sources that aren't WP:ROUTINE that cover the driver sufficiently and directly, it might help to pass WP:GNG. ~XyNq^t_c 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! Nascarbball24 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added multiple sources, as well as information in an attempt to improve this page. Nascarbball24 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nascarbball24: It still might need some editing to just clean up a little bit, but the added sources and info definitely help a lot. ~XyNq^t_c 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but of the 4 additional sources added, this and this are press releases which fail WP:V as they are not independent of the subject, while this and this are WP:ROUTINE news releases with no SIGCOV. None of these can count towards GNG for those reasons. We cannot write an encyclopedic article from these, and Wikipedia is not a mindless database. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There might be more content now but sourcing hasn't improved. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PR sources should be fine because they are only being referenced to show Lapcevich's participation in race series. The general concern outlined for press releases at WP:PRSOURCE seems to be focused on how press releases can include undue praise. Also I'm concerned how you think those two articles you addressed as routine have no significant coverage of Lapcevich as the articles cover him completely and directly. Not to mention, they are not routine articles much at all: the one about Lapcevich being slated to drive in Tagliani's car was published 5 days before the scheduled event. Far from routine if you ask me, unless you consider driver debuts as routine. ~XyNq^t_c 02:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that press releases explicitly fail the GNG by default. Furthermore, race teams make last minute announcements all of the time; the timing of these announcements has zero bering on their ROUTINEness, instead their content does. Both articles make a passing mention of finishing 3rd place in the "Ontario APC Series" but don't go into any further detail, since both articles are routine in their coverage. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 03:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're seriously stretching how ROUTINE is defined. While I think there shouldn't be two articles used there since they're pretty much about the same thing, I disagree that they're routine. The fact that you are stretching the definition of routine so much implores me to bring up the fact that, as said in WP:NOTROUTINE, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline intended for citing in articles about events (hence ROUTINE's much less used shortcut WP:DOGBITESMAN). ~~You are leaning much too heavily on trying to tear this article down based on stretching interpretation of guidelines.~~ Regarding your issue with those press releases failing GNG: if you want to stretch definitions, you could argue that those press releases are independent of Lapcevich himself because he did not make and publish them, therefore making them valid sources because they are independent. At worst article could be modified to mention that was referenced in a PR. Also, I'm curious, how does only a passing mention of him placing 3rd in a series constitute an article being routine? I'm not trying to ask that maliciously, I'm genuinely curious what your rationale is there. ~XyNq^t_c 04:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, there is nothing to tear down because, as I have already said there is nothing with which to write an encyclopedic article about this subject. Please strike this accusation. I'm not stretching anything. Both of them essentially say "Subject announced to drive for Team in Race/Series." That is the very definition of routine. Both of them offer very little, if any detail on the subject himself, other than what I already mentioned. These basic news announcements are not enough. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the statement put on the article that is referencing that piece isn't particularly large here and only really is using it for what I said, that is, noting the fact of his debut in the series. I won't fall back on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS despite how tempting it is (at least this group isn't as bad as WP:OLYMPICS, you should see that). and I do enjoy having a discussion on this really. It's generally hard to find coverage of auto racing drivers from independent or non-"routine" sources. Also again with ROUTINE being an events guideline, if this article was "Participation of Treyton Lapcevich in the ACP series" then I would agree to delete it. But this article is not that. Also, I apologise for the false accusation. I striked it, as mentioned. ~XyNq^t_c 05:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney is correct here, press releases are definitely, unequivocally rejected from consideration for notability; and failing ROUTINE is a widely-accepted rationale at athlete AfDs when referring to general competitor announcements (it is more often called "transactional coverage" in football, cricket, etc.). JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: we need more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the most in-depth independent coverage a subject receives is a handful of sentences reporting he will be standing in for another competitor at a non-notable competition, the subject fails both GNG and BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV has been identified, and without it WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 is failed. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as stands still fails to reach the SIGCOV threshold. A search of my own yielded at best glancing or incidental mentions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to reach WP:SIGCOV. Nascar9919 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is clearly not a consensus to delete this content – if anything, the closest thing to a consensus is "don't delete". However, there is also no consensus here on what is the right alternative: to keep the content as its own page – presumably under a different title, since the one thing most seem to agree on is that the page is poorly named – or to merge the content into some other relevant page(s). Those alternatives can be hashed out elsewhere and at this point deletion seems the least desired result, so I am closing this AfD. RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easily confused Buddhist representations

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

The article title and the article is WP:SYNTHESIS about various Buddhist deities, which are "easily confused". The "Easily confused Buddhist representations" has no academic basis and is an WP:OR term. We already have articles Buddhahood, Buddharupa and Boddhisattva, where the referenced information can be suitably merged. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Buddhism. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: "Easily confused." That's all I have to say. Pure OR/Synth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe you guys can tell the lady at our neighborhood temple who that is in her statue. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge but at the very least rename, or merge somewhere. If we had a decent article on the Iconography of the Buddha or Buddha in art, much of it could go there, but (pathetically) we don't - that redirects to Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand. The title is obviously crap, but the delete votes don't seem to have looked beyond that, & offer no rationales for deletion (I just don't understand what SusanLesch is saying). User:Redtigerxyz, you haven't proposed a merge, or merges, but deletion. If it's deleted, it can't be suitably merged. As things are, it could be tacked on to Buddhist art. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, sorry, I was trying to say that even members of a sangha can be confused. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure why that's an argument for deletion though. It's silly in a title (or not the wiki way) but there's no doubt that non-Buddhists and no doubt many Buddhists can be "easily confused" as to the identity of eg the main and other images in shrines, & an attempt to redress this has a place somewhere on wp. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, Buddharupa includes the iconography of the Buddha. I have merged the Dhyani Buddha part in the Five Tathāgatas, but a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable. Also, leaving a "crap" title redirect to any other article seems to be not a good option.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting a merge leaving a redirect, though that could anyway be dealt with separately if you dislike it that much. Buddharupa badly needs a rename - I had no idea that was what it was about, and had never looked at it. No wonder it gets under 60 views a day, and has not been developed much. It's pretty inadequate. I don't really see why "a complete merge in 1 article is not advisable" actually. At the very least, the references here are much better than those at Buddharupa (very poor) even if little use is made of most of them. We have so ridiculously little on Buddhist art, it seems perverse to set about deleting stuff. In fact, Buddharupa claims at the start to cover images of all Buddhas, but in fact only covers Gautama, so this stuff would (all) be useful additions there. Btw, the Visual arts sort list is the correct one for this, not "Arts". Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur that the lack of Buddha in art is ridcolous. Jesus in art redirects to Depictions of Jesus. We do have Depictions of Gautama Buddha in film. I am sadly not familiar with the topic in question, but I do think that some content would belong to Depictions of Buddha. Is there anyone who could stub something on this so we would have a merge target? User:Uncle G, any chance this tickles your fancy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should stick with Buddharupa, and rename it, for now. The point of the article under discussion is that is is principally about images of other buddhas, not Gautama. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also redirected Buddha in art there, for now. I'm happy to merge this (Easily Confused..) into Buddharupa. I think at some point we need to decide whether a single "Buddhas in art" (all of them) or two articles: "Gautama/The Buddha in art" plus one on other Buddhas in art. If the articles were better they might need splitting on grounds of length. An alternative is to move this to a title to be decided - maybe Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art - and clarify that the scope of Buddharupa is just images of Gautama (and renaming it). In that case I could start an expansion of this one, which lacks many of the most basic points. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[18][19] Buddharupa should cover only Gautama Buddha. Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand (which started as Iconography of the Buddha) has common elements of the Buddha iconography. Would suggest merging into Buddharupa and having an article Iconography of Gautama Buddha or likewise. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm happy to keep Buddharupa to cover only Gautama Buddha, which really only involves changing the first senence. But probably this should be proposed at the talk there. In that case I would suggest keeping this, renaming and re-writing it. Some would survive. I'm not so sure about merging Iconography of Gautama Buddha in Laos and Thailand, which works well as a more local article. Again, that would need a discussion there. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge or at the very least rename, The argument for deletion are mainly aginsy poor title, which may be renamed; else content can be merged in relevant pages. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge, this article has plenty of sources to make it notable. If it can't get kept then the information could be added to other pages. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started Talk:Buddharupa#Clarifying_the_scope per the above - to clarify that that article just covers Gautama, as it actually does, but not as the lead says. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge or at the very least rename per Johnbod. Huggums537 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly consensus that something might be done with this material, but there is not yet consensus on exactly what - whether rename or merge, and if so, to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 09:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - This needs to go. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Related Talk:Buddharupa#Requested_move_3_June_2022 now started. That article will just cover Gautama Buddha. There seems consensus to rename this one - to Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art, unless anyone has a better idea. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current title is clear and describes the content, which is appropriately referenced, of general notability and importance and interest. It should be kept as it is, though I don’t object to renaming it as Buddhas and bodhisattvas in art if it needs to be renamed.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deciding whether something is "easily confused" is inevitably original research. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, everybody agrees the title is bad, but why is that a reason to delete rather than rename? Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andaingo (desambiguation)

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

Not needed - setting aside the spelling, there is only one entry. The other mentions are red-linked partial title matches. Leschnei (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G14. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded it to include additional uses. And of course Move to fix the spelling error. MB 14:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would still delete, none of those additions is ambiguous. Leschnei (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've created a sourced little stub at Andaingo (moth) which I'm sure a lepidopterist or taxonomist will be along soon to improve, and made a hatnote to it from the Madagascar location, so the dab page is not needed. PamD 11:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed DAB page. SWinxy (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two qualifying terms (village and genus), solved with hatnote; no dab needed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merrion Gates

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

The article has limited notability for inclusion on Wikipedia - level crossings do not normally warrant their own articles. Perhaps the article could be renamed/merged/moved to refer to the surrounding area instead, as suggested in the lead paragraph...

Other comments welcome as I know the notability (or lack of) has been discussed before. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ireland. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I completely understand the rationale for the nomination (and certainly railway crossings wouldn't normally warrant their own article), the subject here is a little more than "just" a level crossing. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, granted most of the coverage relates to the "notorious" nature of the bottleneck (and plans to address that), but there is a chunk of coverage which deals with the subject as a titular/primary topic. (Irish Times: [20][21][22]. Irish Independent: [23][24]. Etc). In terms of WP:GEOFEAT, while not a protected structure or similar, the subject likely taps the "historic, social importance" criteria. In that it is described in several sources as marking the "boundary of the city of Dublin" and "symbolic entry point to the inner city" (EG: [25][26]). To the extent that visiting or returning notables were often greeted at these gates. Like papal legate Cardinal Lorenzo Lauri in 1932. Or the reception held here for Éamon de Valera on his return to Ireland in 1919. If there is consensus for a merge, then I'm not sure what target to suggest. Perhaps the Merrion railway station article. Which is immediately nearby. However, IMO and while stations are perhaps more conventionally afforded their own articles, the junction has been the subject of way more coverage than the station....) Guliolopez (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find Guliolopez's argument persuasive. CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez:, @CT55555: - if Merrion railway station is nearby, perhaps that may be a suitable place to merge? Clearly it seems to be a level crossing with information about it - but I don't think the level crossing is necessarily notable enough in its own right. Would you be in favour of merging it with Merrion? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the rater tool, which rated this as a C-class article. Why would you want to merge it, why not just leave it as it is? Or improve it? CT55555 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG. The topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more participation for a fair decision
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriately referenced, meets general notability guidelines. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meta Runner. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch Productions

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

As much as I dislike the idea of deleting articles, I honestly don't think Glitch Productions meets the notability guidelines for WP:WEB or WP:NCORP just yet. Besides the Kotaku source and the VentureBeat paragraph, most of the sources here either briefly discuss the company in relation to their Meta Runner and SMG4 works or are primary sources from their own YouTube videos. If WP:100W were an official guideline, I still don't think the sources here would satisfy that beyond the aforementioned Kotaku and VentureBeat pieces. However, if there were just one more in-depth source about them, I think Glitch Productions would just barely pass WP:WEB at least and I'd be happy to close the discussion. I looked on Google News but still haven't found another good source yet - there may be one I overlooked however. If anyone could find that good source (or more), whether a news source, book or scholarly article, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. If not, I apologize to the fans of Meta Runner, SMG4 and Glitch Productions in advance. There's already a draft for the company however, so not all hope is lost if it gets deleted or merged/redirected. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I forgot to mention that I did identify these two sources as WP:SIGCOV in my before search, but I dismissed them because I'm not sure this website counts as a reliable source. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would either of these sources suffice?

https://www.mediaweek.com.au/screen-australia-announces-1-8-million-for-9-online-projects/

https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/c/glitch-productions-pty-ltd/20539/ - K-popguardian (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K-popguardian I'm not entirely sure about Mediaweek's reliability, but even so, a basic Ctrl+F reveals that they're mentioned in only one sentence that's more about Meta Runner than GP. As for Screen Australia, that link just seems like a repo of their works like IMDb. I guess both would be fine for verifiability, but I don't think it adds much to their notability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @PantheonRadiance, I am someone that actually works for Glitch and would like to work to keep this page up. I have gathered 3 sources that hopefully can help withdraw the nomination.

[27]https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/10/murder-drones-animated-series-glitch/

-

[28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB7GrLBr7fo

-

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=DTWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytelegraph.com.au%2Fnewslocal%2Fsouthern-courier%2Fyoutubers-kevin-and-luke-lerdwichagul-bring-the-world-of-gaming-to-life-in-meta-runner%2Fnews-story%2Ff552592ad6ca4da40f1938bcbb87f670&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=dynamic-cold-control-score&V21spcbehaviour=append CubeThePenguin (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMHO the coverage is mostly WP:ROUTINE announcements and WP:PASSING mentions, therefore the company does not meet NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: or Redirect to Meta Runner. Thank you for the suggestion, PantheonRadiance. I agree that a redirect is a suitable WP:ATD here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2: CubeThePenguin Hey, thank you for taking the time to look for sources about GP; I just finished looking at them. First off, I highly recommend you read WP:COI immediately if you haven't done so already. That being said, here are my thoughts on the sources you suggested to me.

Collapsed for brevity

I somehow didn't see this source appear on Google News at all when looking at the sources, which is odd. This Gizmodo source does go into Murder Drones a bit more than it does the company itself, but there are a couple of sentences dedicated to the company in relation to the process for how they created the series. I would say it partially shows their notability, but I would've liked it to go just a bit more in detail about the company itself. This does seem on the right track however.
Hmm... I don't think this source establishes their notability at all. I know YouTube videos can be used IF they're from a reliable media outlet (like say The Guardian, IGN, Wired, etc.), and it's a secondary/independent video. However, Screen Australia seems to be an affiliate of GP and doesn't seem like a news or journalism outlet, so it doesn't count as independent. Not to mention most of the video merely has the brothers talking about themselves and such rather than, say, a journalist using clips from the interview and adding explanatory or analytical commentary alongside it. This source could be used as a primary source for how they formed, but seeing as how most of the info comes "straight from the horse's mouth," it's not secondary or independent enough to confirm notability.
I admittedly glossed over the Daily Telegraph source when I did my BEFORE search and didn't realize it until yesterday after creating the AfD discussion, not to mention it being under a paywall. Although it also focuses on Meta Runner, it does go into some good detail on the brothers who made the company and partially on the process for making the series. It's a fine enough secondary source to use, and this should've been added to the article long before the mainspace was created.

Overall, I suppose along with the brief Kotaku and VentureBeat sources, #1 and #3 has swayed me a bit more into the Weak Keep side of the spectrum. I wish the sources were more 75% about the company and 25% about their creations, but I suppose these sources are barely enough to cross the threshold of notability.

However, I unfortunately decided that I won't withdraw the nomination yet because there is another issue at hand: the draft. This article was a near-blatant copy of the declined draft from a few months ago that was edited over the redirect to Meta Runner against Robert McClenon's wishes, and didn't even come close to proving a stronger case for notability than before. In fact the version before I nominated it for deletion had more primary sources to YouTube than the draft, showing how ill-conceived this plan was. Because of this choice, we're left with a dilemma that I feel more editors need to chime in on. Assuming these sources pass, should we keep this version of the article and merge the declined draft here? Or should we delete this version, revise the draft with these added sources and push the draft to mainspace via AfC? And if other editors believe these sources don't amount to notability, what about other alternatives? @MrsSnoozyTurtle: If you don't think these sources count, have you also considered a possible merge or redirect to Meta Runner as well, like how it originally was a few months ago? PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PantheonRadiance yes I have looked at the stuff regarding COI and have declared it on my profile, I'm doing this voluntarily & unpaid on my own time rather than as someone from the company, I just wanted to declare that I do work for them.

Regarding this draft, is this something I need to help out/discuss with or is it something that somebody else did that you guys would need to talk about. Additionally, just from my own opinion I'm not sure if a merge with Meta Runner would be appropriate since this article focuses primarily on Glitch as a company while the Meta Runner page focuses more on the show they produced. Thanks CubeThePenguin (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've acknowledged it. :) The issues with the draft were admittedly another reason why I nominated the page for deletion, because it seemed like an attempt to game the system without necessarily proving that GP was notable. My comment was directed more towards other editors in general, especially those who reviewed the draft months ago and didn't notice that the draft overrode the redirect. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @PantheonRadiance got it no worries! I apologize for that I had no idea someone did that to bypass the drafting process. Is there anything I can do to help resolve that and have everything go through due process without deletion? CubeThePenguin (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CubeThePenguin: I would say you could work on adding the sources you found into either the draft or mainspace, but honestly even I'm not sure how this will play out exactly, not to mention your CoI. As aforementioned I'm leaning a bit more towards a (very) weak keep, but other editors may not fully agree with me, so I suppose we should wait to get more responses to see others' responses (especially with the draft as well). In the meantime, you should look for as many reliable sources as possible that cover them in significant enough detail. If you do manage to find more, post them here immediately. Here's a list of sources listed on WP that are reliable per community consensus.

Also to @Cabrils: Is there an alternate way for me to access the source, or at least post what it says about GP (like the word count)? If it's significant enough, then taking into consideration CubeThePenguin's sources as well I think it might make a stronger case for notability. If it isn't significant, would you prefer a redirect instead? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've added the one RS I could find in Newsbank (news database covering Australia and NZ). However, I'm inclined to agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle: I don't think it's sufficient to satisfy WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was pinged and will comment at this time before reviewing the article in detail to !vote. First, the nominator expresses an inclusionist dislike of deleting articles. Unthinking inclusionism is manipulated by bad-faith conflict of interest editors to try to stuff crud into Wikipedia; but the nominator is thinking, and agrees that sometimes articles should be deleted. Second, I didn't create the redirect; I only tagged it {{R with possibilities}}. Third, I didn't evaluate the draft as to corporate notability. I declined it on account of sourcing, that is, for verifiability. The draft had been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, including too many references to YouTube, and I said that I wasn't planning to review all of the sources to see if a few of them were significant coverage. The current article also appears to have too many low-quality sources including YouTube. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The question is - are there enough IRS to pass notability. More participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Adding on to Less Unless' note, I have a few questions editors should discuss. First, does anyone believe BubbleBlabber is a reliable source? If so, would the two articles from the website count for establishing notability? Second, keeping the Gizmodo and Daily Telegraph sources in mind as well (and even the brief Kotaku/VentureBeat articles too), would it just barely be enough for GP to pass any of the guidelines (CORP, WEB, GNG)? Finally, if these sources aren't enough and more can't be found, then would anyone be in favor of a redirect/merge to Meta Runner instead of deletion? I'm slightly more lenient towards a weak keep but as an alternative option I'll stick with a merge/redirect. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or Draft-ify or~~ Merge w/ Meta Runner It is not surprising that this article ended up AfD'd considering how most "potential" articles related to SMG4 and GLITCH (e.g. Murder Drones, SMG4) are the subject of repeated creations (see WP:SALT). I would keep it if there were substantial amounts of reliable and independent secondary sources, not just sources linking to YouTube. AlphaBeta135(talk) 01:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update Note I want to make things clear that these YouTube videos from SMG4 and GLITCH in the Glitch Production article (or related) are, by Wikipedia's definition, primary sources; the videos are published by SMG4 and GLITCH, to reiterate. From what I can hypothesize in my following statements, using these videos as a source of this article is generally discouraged as they are subject to differing interpretations (sometimes slightly erroneous or misleading) from typical Wikipedians. A good secondary sources can provide an objective (and a little bit subjective) summation of a particular source or simply mention the subject by a reliable third-party author or publisher. When there are plenty of information on this topic from a third-party, this (perhaps) minimizes the chance of (sometimes accidental) original research caused by misinterpretations from editors. Given how contentious this subject currently is over sourcing, I think it is in the best interest to stall Glitch Production from becoming mainspace or maybe even draft-ify it. For now, we could perhaps redirect Glitch Production and SMG4 to Meta Runner. Contrary to most people arguing for deletion, I do not think it makes sense to delete the Glitch Production article right away, as the Meta Runner article is still live. It would make sense to turn this article into a redirect to Meta Runner. If a potential redirect happens to be the subject of repeated attempts to turn it into an article without substantial sources, an edit protection is provided. Otherwise, if the Meta Runner article somehow got deleted, then Glitch Production (as a potential redirect) would be G8'd (speedy deleted). AlphaBeta135(talk) 22:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I forgot to mention that redirects are not subject to WP:GNG or any notability guidelines; only mainspace articles are subject to such guidelines. Nowhere in any guideline (as far as I see) does redirects have to follow such rules. Since there is a Meta Runner article, which is related to Glitch Production, this could, again, be a potential redirect. AlphaBeta135(talk) 00:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3 Also, I would like to add and proclaim that the SMG4 (can only be created by template editors and admins) and Smg4 pages be redirected to Meta Runner. Both too are closely related to Meta Runner, since they are part of Glitch Productions. However, the SMG4 (all caps) page is un-editable by any non-admin or template editor, so one of the admins and template editors should, in my request, create the SMG4 (all caps) page as a redirect to Meta Runner. The Smg4 (as it is; also editable by any editor) page, in my opinion, should also be a redirect to Meta Runner instead of the most likely ill-fated Glitch Productions article. AlphaBeta135(talk) 01:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Meta Runner as WP:ATD. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts - AlphaBeta135 and HighKing's responses are pretty solid in my opinion. I feel there's a rough consensus to keep the article as a redirect as it was a couple weeks ago. If anyone still wants to add the few sources discussed here to the GP draft and/or Meta Runner, you're welcome to do so. In any case, I think this should probably be protected as a redirect so no one is tempted to hastily recreate the article. In the meantime, if any new sources arise that do prove GP fully passes the guidelines, editors should add them to the draft. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @PantheonRadianceI actually have one question regarding the Screen Australia sources. Before you stated this

"However, Screen Australia seems to be an affiliate of GP and doesn't seem like a news or journalism outlet, so it doesn't count as independent." just regarding any SA sources, SA themselves are actually also a publisher and a government agency, so even though they do help fund Glitch Projects, I just wanted to ask exactly why they would not count as independent.

Additionally, just to make things fully clear, the biggest issue at the moment is just not enough Secondary Sources correct? so e.g. sources from an independent outlet that talk about Glitch as a company rather than one of their shows? When I say "Glitch as a company" I just want to know what that means is all, so that I can help. If new sources that suffice were to come in the future, does that mean the article would need to be re-written as well if it does get deleted/redirected? Thanks. CubeThePenguin (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Balázs Horváth

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. Never been referenced. scope_creep^Talk 10:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently no references on article and fails WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability other than a pay-to-play who is who.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight Magazine

AfDs for this article:

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

@Mwalla307, Czar, Gobonobo, Egeymi, Missvain, and Zafir94: Given that the outcome of the 2014 deletion discussion was "no consensus" it would appear to be reasonable enough to start a 2022 deletion discussion. I agree with the nominator that this would appear to be "an article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", as it would appear to be only ever have been a website. A search for its ISSN yields no indication that it had ever been in paper form. As always, please do prove wrong. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually magazines itself doesn't receive press or coverage maybe that's why the 1st nomination was no consensus. Elena Marcus D (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unsourced. Statements, claims have no citation.Zafir94 (talk)
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage. I looked for sources using Google News, Google Scholar, Wikipedia Library, and Newspapers.com. The search—complicated somewhat by other magazines with similar names—turned up only passing mentions: so-and-so wrote for it, it sponsored an event, etc. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Engdahl

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

Fails GNG, A congressional candidate but not yet notable for a Wikipedia article Aoyoigian (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aoyoigian (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections they haven't won yet — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and Wikipedia is not a free public relations database for aspiring future officeholders to promote their candidacies in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not yet notable. If he wins in November he will be, but not until that happens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucjan Pajdzik

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

This article does not suggest the subject is notable and I am unable to find online sources to establish notability. It is also promotional. The same editor created Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy, which does not appear to be notable either. The connection is that Lucjan Pajdzik apparently designed a sundial at the museum. TSventon (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Poland, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With minimal citation profile (one multiauthor paper with 5 citations was all I could see), DPhil in 2007, and subsequent work in IT industry, I'm not seeing notability under WP:PROF. I don't think calculating a sundial for a minor museum conveys any notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sundial for a museum but for the city of Tychy and the most accurate in the world. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This small museum has 3 decorations, several awards and European and Polish certificates, including ISO 9001 Krzysiek2224 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also came here from the Tychy museum, given the author's combatative stance, it seems they are WP:NOTHERE, but rather aim to promote a few niche topics they care about. WP:COI is likely. Anyway, regarding the article in question, WP:BIO is not met, and neither is WP:NPROF. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person doesn't pass our notability standards very low to non-existent citations and no sources found. Also the potential SPA or COI is concerning. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref stacking out the wazoo, for what appears to be simply a resume or a Linked In page. Unsure what his connection to the sundial is either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucjan Pajdzik

https://docplayer.pl/6201455-Wystawa-rzezby-prezentacja-multimedialna-przeznaczona-jest-dla-placowek-oswiatowych-oraz-osrodkow-kultury.html Krzysiek2224 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. When disregarding SPAs and PAs, consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 15:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy

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

This article has no independent references and I am unable to find online sources to establish notability. It is also promotional. The same editor has also created articles on the museum in 17 other languages (the de article is now a draft). TSventon (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and non-notable. Single editor, new, virtually an SPA, all the many citations primary to the museum collection. Obviously a lot of work and care has gone into the 18 Wikipedia pages, as presumably into the museum, but this is advertising not notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This museum has 3 decorations, several awards and many European and Polish certificates for high quality, including ISO 9001. It mainly collects miniature art, many of which are the smallest in the world. The museum is under the authority of the Minister of Culture and National Heritage. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dominiak Henryk Jan, Biografia Indeks według kodu Grup Zawodowych: Sztuka, kultura i muzea, [w:] Britishpedia, Encyklopedia Osobistości Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, BPH – British Publishing House Ltd, t. III., 2017, s. 245. ISBN 978-1-912100-36-1.

Dominiak Henryk Jan, Biografia Indeks według kodu Grup Zawodowych: Sztuka, kultura i muzea, [w:] Britishpedia, Encyklopedia Osobistości Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, BPH – British Publishing House Ltd, t. VII., 2021, s. 251. ISBN 978-1-912100-46-0. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read about this museum in the printed encyclopedia. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is the smallest museum in the world. Its exhibition area is 6.15 m² Krzysiek2224 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britishpedia is a scam, a type of "pay us and we will include an entry of about you in our self-published fakepedia" [29] [30]. Being listed in it is more like a sign of desperation/poor judgement I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero hits in Jstor and GScholar.Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle on the Vistula - the smallest picture in the world Krzysiek2224 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Unless we treat all museums as automatically notable, there is little to help with this. The article has refs, but they are self-published or otherwise unreliable, or fail WP:SIGCOV. The only reliably-looking reference used on pl wiki is a local radio station article - but it's just a short press release ([31]). My BEFORE did find two short pieces/interviews in a local newspaper Dziennik Zachodni ([32], [33] )and a local news portal [34] that probably are not paid for, but I do think that it's not enough. The only indepedent coverage of he museum is found in the last piece, and it's just two short sentences (that the museum was founded in 2013 and is considered the smallest museum in the world, the last claim is unreferenced and presumably is a form of markting of this museum). If a larger, mainsream newspaper would cover this entity and back up this claim, I'd say week keep, but as it is, I am afraid [[WP:GNG] is not met. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, it is useful to have a Polish speaker look into this. TSventon (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and the Polish Tourist Organization? - please read carefully and do not accuse anyone of fraud Krzysiek2224 (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Entry in a government catalogue of museums is irrelevant. It just reprints museum's self-description, and is legally required to list all entities with a museum classification. They can do it, but WP:NOTACATALOGUE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mislead anyone or slander others. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote 'Decorations like interest, niche' - decorations from the Minister of Culture and National Heritage of Poland and Provincial Authorities - you call them 'niche'. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote Britishpedia is a scam - who are you, that you insult everyone so much. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a pay-to-play publisher, hence not a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually it is the smallest museum in the world. Its exhibition area is 6.15 m2. This is not true. This soure claims over 20m2, and google shows plenty of other mueums making the same claim, one even in a phone booth so obviously smaller. It's just misleading marketing. I listed this at pl wiki deletion (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:05:30:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach) but pl wiki is more inclusive and I can imagine that entry being kept due to random "all museums are notable" arguments, just like we used to say here ~10 years ago, in the early days of interpreting WP:GNG... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that you deleted this post about `` Its exhibition area is 6.15 m2 and as you call them all scammers. Krzysiek2224 (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The French wiki article uses mostly primary sources (the museum's website) and almost appears as a catalogue. They list the various "awards" won, but I'm not sure which are notable. Rest of the sourcing is mentions in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gov.pl/web/gov/szukaj?query=Muzeum+Miniaturowej+Sztuki+Profesjonalnej+Henryk+Jan+Dominiak+w+Tychach&category=kategoria&page=1&size=25

It is a museum subordinate to the Minister of Culture and National Heritage Krzysiek2224 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the Biblioteka Śląska w Katowicach , where there is the third edition of Britishpedia -

Encyclopedia of Polish People's Personalities: BPH-British Publishing House. 3 - entry Dominiak Henryk Jan, Biography Index according to the code of Occupational Groups: Art, culture and museums.

https://integro.bs.katowice.pl/search/description?q=%22encyklopedia+osobisto%C5%9Bci+rzeczypospolitej+polskiej+%3A+a+bph-british+publishing+house+publication.+3%22&index=1 Krzysiek2224 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've already shared this. The government link isn't a secondary source and we already explained why the Britishpedia isnt' reliable either. You need coverage in a large national newspaper like the New York Times or a magazine or something, unconnected to the museum. I did a search using the Polish names, we only get 6 pages total in google, most are mirrors of the wiki article, a French search only has 2 pages total, none of which are usable here. Nothing in Gbooks or in Gnews. Not notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
then I gave 3 sources

Western Journal - Dziennik Zachodni Krzysiek2224 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dziennik Zachodni - 3 Krzysiek2224 (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and Gazeta Wyborcza Krzysiek2224 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added links The Polish Tourist Organization - this is the most important information in Poland about some object worth attention - they check it very carefully.

https://www.polska.travel/pl/muzea/muzeum-miniaturowej-sztuki-profesjonalnej-henryk-jan-dominiak-w-tychach Krzysiek2224 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. A famous museum with interesting miniature art. Alicja2891 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC) — Alicja2891 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not delete. There are very interesting collections in this museum. Made with interesting techniques. It is probably the only museum of this type in Poland and Europe which, as the name suggests, collects miniature art with dimensions counted in millimeters. ASUS668 (talk) 9:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC) — ASUS668 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgın (given name)

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

There are no articles about people with this name. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not a valid reason for deletion. Here it is in on Trwiki. Article is notable and could be translated to English. Kadı Message 18:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. A fencer who won a junior European championship does not satisfy WP:NSPORTS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has independent and reliable sources which is required for WP:GNG. [35] Kadı Message 17:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's one short article in something called Timeturk and one passing mention. That's far from good enough for GNG. See Category:Turkish female foil fencers, for example (though her specialty apparently is the sabre): all participated in the Olympics. She, on the other hand, shared a bronze medal in a satellite tournament of the 2014–15 Fencing World Cup. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This fails as a list of people (empty list) and it fails as an encyclopaedic discussion of the name per se. The content consists only of its (unsourced) meaning in Turkish (the link to the town should be a "see also" at best). I'm all for having articles on names on Wikipedia, but in its current state this is in WP:NOTDIC territory so a soft redirect to wikt:Ilgın is a solution. SpinningSpark 10:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought those types of redirects to other languages are discouraged, since the lack of a red link gives the impression that a en.WP article exists. H:FOREIGNLINK discusses using {{interlanguage link}}.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: The link I suggested is not an iterlanguage link – it is a link to the English Wiktionary. SpinningSpark 12:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my mistake.—Bagumba (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikt comment A Wiktionary link is a better alternative to keeping—I still prefer delete (see below)—but we don't fully meet the WP:POINTWIKT policy either (bold for emphasis):
For Wikipedia articles which could only ever be dictionary definitions and keep being re-created and re-deleted, or which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment, it is possible to effectively "salt" them with a soft redirect to Wiktionary
—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any en.WP bios of people with the name, this is not a standalone name lists, as allowed per MOS:DABNAME and consistent with WP:APO/S. As a pure article on the name, we need significant coverage, else this is a permastub. Per the guideline WP:WHYN:
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn’t need to have articles about people with the name to be notable. It is referenced and can be expanded upon.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksa Sever

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

Both the references at https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/560819934/developer-releases-new-free-trivia-game-at-the-app-store and https://www.asiaone.com/business/aleksa-sever-launches-second-game-app read like press releases. Does not seem to show notability. The other two links are to the App Store and his own website. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Computing, Serbia, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources lacking. Gusfriend (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://apnews.com/press-release/MarketersMEDIA/technology-lifestyle-business-games-europe-1a35ed79ddb5b8f000091101d13353e2 194.230.144.42 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a press release via a paid company which fails WP:RS. Gusfriend (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party coverage. Probably eligible for WP:A7-KH-1 (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source provided https://www.asiaone.com/business/aleksa-sever-launches-second-game-app comes from a paid press release. Fails WP:GNG. --PaulPachad (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sridevi Bungalow

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

This unreleased film has entered post-production early 2020. It does not meet WP:NFF requirement for future films due to lack of significant coverage on production, no scheduled release and nothing helpful found in WP:BEFORE search -- Ab207 (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an unreleased film since long, also a film that fails WP:GNG. The article can be recreated when it passes WP:NFF or WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabru Gang

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

An unreleased film which apparently completed its shoot in 2018. Does not meet WP:NFF requirement for future films due to lack of significant coverage on production, nothing helpful found in WP:BEFORE search -- Ab207 (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an unreleased film since long, also a film that fails WP:GNG. The article can be recreated when it passes WP:NFF or WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deendayal Ek Yugpurush

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

An unreleased film with no update on production since 2018. Does not meet WP:NFF requirement for future films due to lack of significant coverage on production, nothing helpful found in WP:BEFORE search -- Ab207 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of LIS Journals in India

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

non-notable intersection; there's not even a broader list of library science journals. fgnievinski (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this linkfarm of mostly non-notable journals. --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as journals listed here doesn't pass WP:NJournals. ~ Nanosci (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --mikeu ^talk 15:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Aruna Kalra bibliography

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

This article was draftified several times and even declined at AfC which they turned a deaf ear to and recreated the same article under a different name. The subject is a non notable gynaecologist that lacks significant coverage from reliable sources and thus fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy (really? a bibliography article?), and salt. BD2412 T 06:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, is trying to bypass WP:AFC - Draft:Aruna_Kalra. If this article is kept, it should be renamed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this does not read like a bibliography now, does it? Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is improperly titled as a bibliography. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a bibliography. Does not meet WP:GNG -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could have been speedy deleted anyway. MarioGom (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no signs of notability. The oversue of Dr. is promotional. While that could be fixed, signs like this often indicate the subject is not meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 00:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas W. Hubbard

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I'd also wager that User:DrKDP, User:Hubbardaie, and Douglas W. Hubbard are all one and the same. – Ploni (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applied information economics. –Ploni (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Economics. Ploni (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a bad sign when half the sources are by the subject, and it does not get better from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the comment about userIDs was meant for Ploni above. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2C90:31CE:4140:E051 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have always disclosed that HubbardAIE is the username of Doug Hubbard (me) in Wikipedia. The name clearly does not attempt to hide that. I have no idea who DrKDP is though and I'm not sure why you would assume otherwise. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2107:C4B5:D5E6:8A84 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Hubbard here. What is the actual metric for notability which is uniformly applied? For example, for an author, what would be sufficient to be notable? This might include number of books written/sold, universities using those books, independent professional certifications requiring those books, number of articles written including peer-reviewed, number of citations by other research sources, etc. 2601:249:1180:AB30:9CC7:CFA1:2960:BF5D (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing really in terms of referencing independent of the subject or WP:SIGCOV. The level of self-promotion might even merit a WP:TNT delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Hubbard here again. My work in books and peer-reviewed articles and their influence is easily verified and open to the public for critical review. If you decide it is notable, then I'm sure there is plenty of publicly available information for a neutral, objective article. Of course, the standards of Wikipedia should be followed for all individuals. It would be helpful to know what the objective standard for notable would be (see my note above). Thanks for your consideration. 2601:249:1180:AB30:9CC7:CFA1:2960:BF5D (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Hubbard Here. This is why I'm interested in the specific, measurable criteria. I've written four books translated into 5 other languages. The first book is required reading for Society of Actuaries exam prep. Over 170,000 copies have been sold. My books and articles, including peer-reviewed (IBM R&D Journal, The American Statistician, etc.) have been cited over 1400 times according to ResearchGate. I'm just wondering what the minimum number would be to meet the requirements of "widely cited" and what sources you use to count citations. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2091:681B:9D31:201C (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Hubbard here (my apologies for not signing in but it's been years since I've touched any of this. I suppose I should reset my HubbardAIE password)

Looking at the previous nomination for deletion, I see that the "keep" votes were influence in part by the 800 citations just two of my books and the number of reviews of those books. I've written other books and the number of citations and reviews have only increased since then. Should there be more mentions of those sources directly on the page? I gather there would be COI issues if I added them myself during this process. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have always disclosed that HubbardAIE is the username of Doug Hubbard (me) in Wikipedia. The name clearly does not attempt to hide that. I have no idea who DrKDP is though and I'm not sure why you would assume otherwise. See additional responses to other votes. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Hubbard's work cited by numerous commentators in online fora such as LinkedIn. He wrote a couple of articles for OR/MS Today and Analytics, non-archival publications of the Institute for Operations Research and Managements Sciences (INFORMS),m which have in turn been multiply cited in INFORMS and other publications and presentations. I don't follow the archival academic literature all that closely, but he is most certainly well known and highly regarded by practitioners of my acquaintance. I vote to keep his article.

--Doug Samuelson, President, InfoLogix, Inc., long-time Contributing Editor of OR/MS Today 96.241.11.99 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Samuelson and the subject have coauthored a paper together, as per WP:DISCUSSAFD. –Ploni (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We actually co-authored two papers together. But it's good that someone who is a credible published researcher and who is actually familiar with the field has a vote. See my previous comments, especially about the "keep" votes in the 2018 deletion nomination. The reasons mentioned for "keep" votes (800 citations of just two of my books and large numbers of independent reviews) have only increased since then. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCUSSAFD also proposes not to participate in a nomination if "A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found my old account. Will be using this now. Hubbardaie (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but can I vote keep as long as I disclose WP:AVOIDCOI? If I misunderstood this rule, I'm sure reviewers can discount what I say, accordingly. I also disclose that I have co-authored two papers with Doug Samuelson, who voted recently. (I notice he didn't use the convention of the bold "keep" in his response, though.) This came up in a discussion we had about what constitutes "notable" regarding this nomination and he did this on his own. Now, regarding the point of the nomination, I will only say that participants should consider the arguments previous 2018 nomination for deletion. I've said this in replies to previous statements, but I'll repeat some points here under a proper account name. The 800 Google Scholar citations of two of my books mentioned in a "keep" vote in the 2018 nomination for deletion have now increased considerably. The first book, How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, now has 1343 citations by itself. My second book, The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It, has another 1380 citations of its own. (I have two other books, but they are apparently not cited nearly as often as these first two.) That still leaves 2723 total citations of just these first two books, more than 3 times the number which apparently merited a keep vote in the 2018 nomination. Looking me up on researchgate.net, which caters a bit more to peer reviewed publications, will show over 1400 citations (I assume many are redundant of the 2723 mentioned above). The keep votes of the previous nomination also mention the large number of independent reviews. I'm not sure if the reviews they mention are from Amazon, Goodreads, or other independent sources, but whatever their source, the number of reviews has only grown since 2018. I notice that I appear in a few other Wiki pages if that matters. One is Probability Management, which specifically mentions the pseudo-random number generator I developed and how it is now part of the standard adopted by many simulation tools. Unfortunately, it appears that my name in that article is not made into an active link. If that's not enough, I can gather information about the other industry standards and graduate level courses that use my books and other articles I've written in peer-reviewed journals or various interviews in podcasts, etc. Having said that, I would, of course, concede to whatever the group judgement would be on this article. I believe Wikipedia is an important site and should uphold its standards. Hubbardaie (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doug is an authority on risk management and has made significant contribution to the global risk profession. Numerous presentations at the largest online risk management conference RISK AWARENESS WEEK 2020, 2021 and 2022 [36], [37], [38] and [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskacademy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, Risk Academy has interviewed me. The founder organizes events and interviews thought leaders in risk management. Again, like Doug Samuelson, this is someone familiar with who is notable in this field. Many of the people who will have some influence in this field and are widely cited will know each other. Hubbardaie (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Dr. Sam L. Savage, Executive Director of ProbabilityManagement.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit co-founded with Harry Markowitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics. The primary mission of the nonprofit is to develop standards for communicating uncertainty as data that obey both the laws of arithmetic and the laws of probability. Doug is broadly influential as an author, among decision makers who face uncertainty. For this reason, I asked him to write the foreword to my latest book, Chancification (Harry Markowitz wrote the foreword to my previous one, The Flaw of Averages). But more importantly, Doug has contributed vital technology to the discipline of probability management. His cross platform pseudo random number generator (https://www.probabilitymanagement.org/hdr), is a critical layer in the open SIPmath 3.0 technology stack. SIPmath 3.0, which couples Doug's generator to Tom Keelin's Metalog Distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalog_distribution) conveys uncertainties as JSON data structures, which may be interpreted in virtually any computer environment to reproduce the same stream of random variates to about 14 decimal places of accuracy. This open standard has already been adopted by Frontline Systems, a leading provider of spreadsheet analytics. The first generation (single seed version) of this generator has been in use in the SIPmath tools from the nonprofit since 2016. When used in Excel, unlike the RAND formula, which cannot yield repeatable results, the current HDR generator provides a multiple seed pseudo random number generator with a formula that fits in a single cell. When used in conjunction with either the Data Table command or the new Dynamic Arrays, it enables extremely fast interactive Monte Carlo simulation in native Excel without macros or add-ins. Furthermore it does well on the respected Dieharder random number test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard_tests). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSamSavage (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undisclosed COI: [40] –Ploni (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
How is it undisclosed? He explicitly disclosed it. 2601:249:1180:AB30:1586:92B6:74D1:3C69 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign in. So let me repeat. COI cannot be undisclosed if he explicitly disclosed it. Hubbardaie (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right—I must have missed that. Thanks! –Ploni (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of external notability hat has not been provided by the subject or his friends. Nwhyte (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence? I'm curious, where do you look? I've been cited over 2000 times by other books, articles, and researchers. Do you even go to a public source like Google Scholar? ResearchGate? Apparently, the shortcoming of the article is that it only cites mostly my own books. But even a cursory attempt at an honest search would find many more. Or for that matter, simply following up on the claims I made earlier in this discussion. They are easily verifiable for anyone who simply looks. Thanks for your input. Hubbardaie (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding colleagues of mine who commented, they are professionals familiar with the field. A person familiar with business measurement and decision analysis will be more likely to be familiar with my work, friend or not.

Note, WP:DISCUSSAFD also proposes not to participate in a nomination if "A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." I only point this out because your bio and activity appear to be very, very sparse. Do you have familiarity with this field of work? Hubbardaie (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This guy does appear to meet WP:GNG as an expert and published author in his field. I find the argument above by Dr. Savage to be persuasive. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer picture of consensus as to notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 06:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I'm not sure why editors are ignoring the fact that Google Scholar shows two highly cited books: The failure of risk management: Why it's broken and how to fix it (1384) & How to measure anything: Finding the value of intangibles in business (1346), as well as one (co-authored) reasonably well-cited book How to measure anything in cybersecurity risk (160). A handful of book reviews would be a bonus. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that David Eppstein added six book reviews in August 2018 during the last AfD, but they seem to have been removed from the article shortly afterwards; I have restored them. Not checked them, but I think this would meet my understanding of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR and the six book reviews, same as last time. The reviews were removed in a long string of edits by User:DrKDP, who appears to be editing to promote the subject and in the process has made our article worse and more likely to be deleted. DrKDP and the promotional SPAs on parade at this AfD should be encouraged to find something more constructive to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR per David Eppstein (talk · contribs) and the number of citations that Hubbard has in reliable sources. I've cleaned up the promotional content in the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR, and the fact that he is notable enough in the field that I occasionally need to consult his Wikipedia page, which led me here today—a little existence proof, if you will. Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sexuality in Islam. ✗plicit 10:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and masturbation

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

A very viable WP:PROD, this article has come to AfD possibly because someone got confused with the PROD and BLP PROD rules, pointing to the presence of sources as a reason not to PROD. Unfortunately, the presence of some sources does not alleviate the problems with this entry. This article focuses on a minor aspect of sexuality that is not demonstrably notable as a subject outside of a broader discussion on Sexuality in Islam and represents an unneeded content fork. As an isolated subject, it is not covered independently by reliable, secondary sources - it is only covered as a minor mention in most sources (as befitting the fairly trivial and niche nature of the subject in works of a broader scope. As it stands, the subject is also largely the preserve of unreliable online resources, and this is reflected in the current source list. These problems with sourcing are reflected in the unresolved quality issues. Overall, it is not an encyclopedic entry. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced article, seems plausible, no insurmountable issues described in nom. Discuss merger on talk page if desired. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: Which is the reliable source clearly establishing this as a notable topic? I see a lot of religious website spam and a handful of trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I count exactly one source that is both reliable and specific to the subject: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23609456/ But is that enough? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As it stands now, refs 1, 11, 18, 19. Some of the others may be too. If you'd care to do a source analysis table and document a BEFORE, I'll look in more depth. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More possible sources
Marcotte R. Let’s talk about sex: Australian Muslim online discussions. Contemporary Islam. 2015;9(1):65-84. doi:10.1007/s11562-014-0316-9

Smerecnik C, Schaalma H, Gerjo K, Meijer S, Poelman J. An exploratory study of Muslim adolescents’ views on sexuality: Implications for sex education and prevention. BMC public health. 2010;10:533. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-533

Yasan A, Essizoglu A, Yildirim EA. Predictor factors associated with premarital sexual behaviors among university students in an Islamic culture. International Journal of Sexual Health. 2009;21(3):145-152. doi:10.1080/19317610903113813

So... yeah, definitely notable. You should be able to get those through the Wikipedia library. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sexuality in Islam. It is difficult to cover the topic of masturbation without covering Islamic perspectives on related practices like pre-marital sex, porn, age of marriage, Ghusl etc. They are all pretty tightly interconnected and thus the parent article is a better place to cover it.VR _talk 23:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and Merge into Sexuality in Islam. This does not seem like a notable enough topic for a stand alone article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for additional views on whether this should be kept separate or merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per above. Sources found by Jclemens are arguably about more than just masturbation. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are more sources that are specific to the intersection of Islam with masturbation. These include Masturbation: Scientific Evidence and Islam’s View, Solo sex: Masturbation in a sample of Egyptian women, Response to “Masturbation: Scientific Evidence and Islam’s View”, and Masturbation, Semen Collection and Men's IVF Experiences: Anxieties in the Muslim World, and Masturbation Experience: A Case Study of Undergraduate Students in Bangladesh. Deletion seems improper given the sourcing, and it seems to pass the WP:GNG based off of English-language sources alone. Has anybody looked for Arabic- or Turkish-language sources on this topic? My gut says that there's likely enough sourcing to make a whole article out of this, but I'd like a more holistic search before being certain on whether to keep or to merge. Deletion is out of the question. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a slightly less scholarly perspective, The Guardian of Nigeria has a short series touching this topic. Some articles focusing on Islamist extremist preachers, like Osama Bin Laden, also note specific teachings on masturbation in Radical Islam. There's more than enough to write an article, but I'm not sure whether this is covered better in the Sexuality in Islam article per WP:NOPAGE or to break into its own article given the diversity of Muslim practice with respect to this. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is one source there that is specific to the subject, the Springer link, the others are either about the 'Muslim world', not Islam per se, or country-specific. So unless someone is going to go really wild and write an entire series of articles on masturbation in different Muslim-majority countries around the world ... ? And I'm not sure this subject is worth that much breath. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've come around to the Merge perspective given the ability of some of this material to be used to enhance Sexuality in Islam, as well as all the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion on a rename can continue on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Gas Station

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

This location is not on the US National Register of Historical Places. There isn't even an application for it. The is a record from that someone submitted to the state of California but it was never followed up. Dr vulpes (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and California. Dr vulpes (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was at least nominated for the NRHP, see this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After going though the library of congress I did find the application https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/rg-079/NPS_CA/64000065.pdf Dr vulpes (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This says it is an "officially designated United States national historic place" and it is in this listing by the National Park Service. MB 06:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that establishes notability, so keep, but it needs to be expanded. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 08:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is notable, and nomination was mistaken, as courteously admitted by the nominator. And wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did make a good faith effort to find anything that would have supported it being a historic place. I compared it to other applicants and it was significantly different so I assumed it was submitted but never formally approved. Moments after I submitted the deletion request I found the application in the library of congress. If I stumble on any formal rejection I'll reopen. Again thank you everyone for you time, effort, and kindness in the face of my mistake. Dr vulpes (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept to Shell Gas Station, La Grange or something like that. Shell has 1000s of gas stations worldwide. I do not know if this one is notable: not every historic building is. In UK it is only a minority of listed buildings that qualify. If not kept, Merge to La Grange, California. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. places are generally disambiguated with "(City, State)" while U.K. places are done as you suggest here. It would be fine for this to be moved to Shell Gas Station (La Grange, California), leaving a redirect behind, and that redirect could be marked with Template:R with possibilities. --Doncram (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. But obviously rename, as the current title implies it's the only Shell gas station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has historical significance. I do too agree that it should be renamed to something less generic. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan women's national under-20 football team results (2020–present)

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

The article contradicts WP:NOTSTATS. It is customary to create results articles for senior and at least U-23 teams. Sakiv (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, Lists, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NLIST and/or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a statistics database.Fulmard (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eritara Riteti

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current sources and those on a WP:BEFORE search are trivial in nature. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find anything even close to WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaake Kamta

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current sources are trivial and/or database listings of match results. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kiribati international footballers as an ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching across multiple search engines, I could only find trivial mentions and even those were scarce Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wood (cinematographer)

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. of the references, one just mentions that he is a member of the organization, and the other two were written by him. Of the 4 works it says he is known for, 3 of the articles don't even mention his name and one just lists it. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These is some discussion on this at my talk page User talk:North8000#Michael wood deletion Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless substantial improvement and sourcing is forthcoming. The activities listed in the table (primarily second unit work and photography direction for individual TV episodes) do not rise to the level of notability. BD2412 T 06:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jheng Han and Yu

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

Reviewed under New Page Patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or the SNG. The award was a grammy for the packaging/wrapper of an album. North8000 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakelang

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability. A grammy was awarded for the packaging/ wrapper of the album. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Saga

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

Twice CSDed and recreated. No reliable sources. All sources are press releases. Fails WP:GNG. Possible Salt candidate Slywriter (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an advertisement and nothing else. -Vipz (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be any coverage beyond the fact that it exists. (And that only within the crypto sphere.) As a point of interest, there seems to be a draft for the game's developer Draft:Oddiyana_Ventures that reads even more like an advert. ApLundell (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I moved it from mainspace during NPP which lead me to this article. Harmless where it is unless moved back without significant improvement.Slywriter (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Per WP:NOTPROMO. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be promotional cryptospam. Secondary sources mentioning this game when I googled it all appear to be promotional as well. Merko (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by logs, and per other comments, it appears salting the page may also be necessary. Merko (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lie Detector (TV series)

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

After removing some WP:COATRACK info, this article barely has any content. The only good source is a single news article; everything else is directory listings or similar content. prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (2007) [1979]. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 785–786. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 195 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Each episode of Lie Detector consisted of three cases in which people who had been accused of something they denied, or were the accusers of others, were given the chance to "prove" they were telling the truth. Viewers were shown taped interviews and news footage of the cases and host Watts interviewed each of the participants. Following the interviews they submitted to lie detector tests administered by polygraph expert Dr. Ed Gelb, with cameras resolving the results—after which Watts told them how they had done. If they were vindicated they were all smiles but, if they were told they were lying, some of them were incredulous and others were openly hostile. On the first episode a man denied he had profited from donating a kidney to a stranger he found on an Internet donor site (the polygraph indicated he was lying), another man denied he had stolen a bronze bust of baseball player Mickey Mantle (he was telling the truth), and Paul Jones was tested to verify her claims about her embarrassing encounter with former president Bill Clinton (she was telling the truth). Pax reran episodes of Lie Detector in the spring of 2006."
2. Clodfelter, Tim (2005-02-17). "Let's See Who Is Lying – Winston-Salem Native To Be the Host of a New Weekly Television Program". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The article notes: "It's no lie. Winston-Salem native Rolonda Watts will be the host of Lie Detector, a weekly hour-long news program in which people embroiled in controversial issues take polygraph tests to prove their guilt or innocence. ... The first episode of Lie Detector includes Paula Jones, who charged President Clinton with sexual harassment; Robert Smitty, who was accused of profiting from a kidney he donated through an Internet site; and Ben Rowling, who claims that his cousin, J.K. Rowling, based the character of Harry Potter on him."
3. Marley, Patrick (2004-12-30). "TV show denied access to inmates 'Lie Detector' lacked gravity, officials say". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The article notes: ""48 Hour Mystery," hosted by award-winning reporter Leslie Stahl on CBS, was given access. "Lie Detector," a show that sought to give polygraph tests to three Wisconsin inmates maintaining their innocence, wasn't. That prompted an outcry from the producers of "Lie Detector," the new version of a 1960s show that seeks to determine whether notorious people are truthful or artful liars. ... The latest version of "Lie Detector" will air as a weekly show on Pax TV starting in March. The show has had many incarnations since the 1960s, most recently in 1998 as a one-hour special on Fox. ... On the special, hosted by O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark, the claims of innocence by a Florida teenager convicted of manslaughter were found to be true, as was Jeff Gillooly's contention that ex-wife Tonya Harding had a hand in the plot to attack fellow Olympic skater Nancy Kerrigan."
4. Farkash, Michael R. (2005-03-04). "Lie Detector". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 388, no. 8. p. 27. ProQuest 2470927954.
  The article notes: "The hourlong episodes are hosted by Rolonda Watts ("Inside Edition," "The Rolando Show"), whose strong, accusatory style puts the liars on the run. ... Never mind that people have been known to beat lie detectors, and that some of the questions posed on the show seem a bit confusing. How can we doubt top polygraph expert Ed Gelb, who almost never cracks a smile. Truth is a serious business."
5. Thomas, Don (2005-03-10). "Rolanda Watts hosts new series 'Lie Detector'". New York Beacon. p. 27. ProQuest 367989440.
  The article notes: "Veteran television talk show host and actress Rolonda Watts, a native of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, returns to the small screen with the new series "Lie Detector." ... he new series first debuted in the '80s and was hosted by attorney F. Lee Bailey. It is produced by Mark Phillip's Philms and Telephision. He is the executive producer. Rick Davis is the producer and Jon Crowley, the supervising producer. ... Each hour-long episode will present three cases with one common thread; these are stories whose conclusions are unresolved by those who tell them. The lie-detector test will be administered by Dr. Ed Gelb, a leading polygraph expert in the field."
6. "Hollywood Gossip Scoop". Jacksonville Free Press. 2005-02-17. p. 13. ProQuest 365191866.
  The article provides 304 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In some cases, they are the accused -- in other cases, they are the accusers. Both will be given a fair shake on PAX TV's new primetime series, "Lie Detector," premiering Tuesday, March 8, 9:00 pm ET/PT. While the show is hosted by talk show personality Rolonda Watts ("Inside Edition," "The Rolonda Show"), the real star of the show is a polygraph machine, which will be strapped to people and used to examine the truth behind real-life stories ripped from the headlines."
7. Leon, Harmon (2005-05-25). "Bullshitting the Lie Detector". SF Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The article notes: "The show opens with a bald, solemn man, wearing an orange prison jumpsuit, hooked to a lie detector. The screen flashes the words “Truth” and “Lie.” Graphics featuring numbers and colored lines show the program's high-tech nature. There's a shot of smiling host Rolonda Watts (known from outings at Inside Edition and The Rolonda Show) with her arms folded."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. Terrace, Vincent (2011). Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010 (2 ed.). Jefferosn, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 599. ISBN 978-0-7864-6477-7. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: Lie Detector, Series; Reality, Syn; Pax; 1983; 2005). An accuser and an accused appear on stage to relate a real life story. But who is telling the truth and who is lying? A polygraph test is given to both parties after each tells their story. The results are related to the viewing audience (as well as the participants) and, based on the lie detector test results, the record is set straight. Two versions appeared:
    1. Lie Detector (Syn., 1983). Host: F. Lee Bailey.
    2. Lie Detector (PAX 2005). Host: Rolanda Watts."
  2. Hunter, Lashieka Purvis (August 2005). "Catching Liars in the Act". Essence. Vol. 36, no. 4. p. 26. ProQuest 223160954.
    The article notes: "Lie Detector, Rolonda Watts's new prime-time show on PAX, isn't the place to even think about pulling a fast one. Guests submit to polygraph tests, and Watts herself has become a pro at picking apart tall tales. How can you tell if you're being hoodwinked? Watts says it's easy:"
  3. Duffy, Mike (2005-03-08). "TV Today". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Series premiere. I'm tellin' the truth here. Watching this polygraph cheesefest gave me an excruciating reality-show headache. Infotainer Rolanda Watts ("Inside Edition") hosts the tacky search for the truth behind news stories. Tonight's star attraction? Paul Jones tries to prove electronically her allegations that former President Bill Clinton made unwanted sexual advances and exposed himself to her in a Little Rock hotel room 14 years ago. Like Paula says, "Hook me up!" That's not a romantic request — she's just talking about the polygraph machine and her certainty of being found truthful. Silly, silly, silly."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lie Detector to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Matt91486 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources identified above by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to all of Cunard's sources, there is the LA Times one in the article as well. matt91486 (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 10:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Patrol

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

Could only find superficial mentions here and there. Every hit on ProQuest was just a name-drop when rattling it off as one of many shows aired by TruTV/Court TV. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Perigard, Mark A. (2006-07-10). "Television - Review - Beach bummer - 'Patrol' turns no tide with 'Cops'-like fare". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The review gives the TV series a rating of "Grade: C". The review notes: "Court TV's new reality series "Beach Patrol: Miami Beach" (debuting tonight at 8) is so depressing you might swear off sandy shores for the rest of the summer. Given the channel's promos, you're expecting sun, surf and hard bodies, a real-life "Baywatch." "Beach Patrol" is "Cops" with grit and paunch, middle-aged men whose faces are marked by years of working under the sun. ... In a way "Beach Patrol: Miami Beach" is emblematic of what's wrong with Court TV - the cable channel is desperately searching for an identity. ... "Beach Patrol" is another misstep, not as exploitive as one might expect but not as interesting, either."
2. Jicha, Tom (2006-07-10). "Nobody Making Waves – Court TV's Beach Patrol Takes Close Look at South Beach and, Oddly, Finds Little Is Going On". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The review notes: "Baywatch meets Cops on South Beach in the Court TV series Beach Patrol. However, the episode provided for review is neither as titillating as Baywatch nor as bizarre as Cops. The documentary-style half-hours follow the cops and lifeguards who try to maintain safety and civility in an environment in which both are constantly in play. ... Indeed, despite the predator alerts and reckless behavior of some beachgoers, there is never a moment when a life seems to hang in the balance. ... If there isn't an agreement that Beach Patrol will not show anything that embarrasses law enforcement, the cameras must have been rolling on a day when everyone was extraordinarily forgiving. As a whole, Beach Patrol manages to turn back the clock to the pre-Miami Vice days when South Beach was boring."
3. Toth, Catherine (2007-05-12). "Honolulu next for 'Beach Patrol'". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The article notes: "Television crews are wrapping up production next week on a cable reality show that showcases the city's lifeguards. "Beach Patrol: Honolulu," which airs on Court TV, has been in town since March filming lifeguards at various beaches including Waikiki, Sandy Beach, Hanauma Bay and Makapu'u. The show, in its fourth season, will air nine episodes filmed in Hawai'i in July. ... Honolulu is the third city to be featured in this reality TV program. "Beach Patrol" has filmed in San Diego and Miami Beach."
4. Klasne, Catherine (2006-07-10). "SAFE SURF - Relaity show features Miami beach patrol". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The article notes: "We turned them down, but TV producers found another ocean rescue team on another famous Florida beach willing to be portrayed in a "Cops"-like reality series. The result: "Beach Patrol: Miami Beach," a half-hour unscripted show premiering at 8 tonight on Court TV. ... Most of the buff scenery in the show's debut episode - lots of male abs and bikini-clad women - is on display in the opening sequence, as shown in a rough cut of the program provided by Court TV."
5. Carcamo, Cindy; Hammill, Ryan (2007-11-21). "H.B. lifeguards' real jobs on TV". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The article notes: "Images of the everyday rescues and workings of Huntington Beach lifeguards will go national starting Jan. 1 on a new reality show, a Court TV spokeswoman said. ... A production crew from Burbank-based Evolution Film and Tape followed the lifeguards seven days a week this summer, capturing their every move on the job, from ocean rescues and medical aids to jelly fish bites and their interactions with beach-goers. ...The cable show, now called "Beach Patrol," is in its fourth season with episodes of lifeguards in Honolulu. Huntington Beach will be featured for the fifth season, officials said."
6. Rodgers, Terry (2005-08-26). "David Hasselhoff, eat your heart out - Show to highlight local lifeguards". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
  The article notes: "Perhaps the timing couldn't be better for "Beach Patrol," a 10-part documentary-style show being filmed through Labor Day at Mission Beach. The program won't be a clone of "Baywatch," the fictional series about lifeguards that showcased thin plots, hard bodies and buxom blondes. "Beach Patrol," set to air next year on cable channel Court TV, will portray local lifeguards as highly trained, multi-tasking public servants in red bathing suits and blue T-shirts. ... Evolution Film & Tape Inc. of Burbank has been shooting Fridays through Mondays. Using the Mission Beach lifeguard tower as its hub, the film crew has found plenty of action along the bustling, two-mile-long boardwalk."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. Toth, Catherine (2007-07-13). "'Beach Patrol'". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.
    The article notes: "The network filmed nine episodes in Hawai'i this year featuring city lifeguards doing everything from responding to medical calls to working the memorial service for legendary entertainer Don Ho in Waikiki."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beach Patrol to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging NemesisAT (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources identified above by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I'm satisfied with Cunard's sources, which seem to provide enough in-depth coverage of the show to enable us to write a policy-compliant non-stub article. The sources suggest that this may be related to Ocean Force, e.g. ProQuest 306160568 ("′Ocean Force′ is the latest in a series of reality docudramas that have aired on TruTV - until today known as Court TV - under the previous title of ′Beach Patrol′"), so it might be worth considering a merger of some sort. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American University of Nigeria#History (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 07:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American University of Nigeria library

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

No viable reason to be separate from the main American University of Nigeria article. No need for a merge either, as information is too specific (e.g., they have a telephone) for an encyclopedia listing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American_University_of_Nigeria#History where it's mentioned. Agree about no need to merge, but possibly awards if they're notable? Star Mississippi 13:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect makes sense, there is nothing that indicates the need for a separate article. The target mentioned above is fine, although adding a library section might be preferrable. Jacona (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give Your Vote

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

I found this article from the lead up to the campaign, but I cannot find evidence this campaign nor its organizer ever attained notability. I planned to create a stub for Egality, but was not able to identify any sourcing on which to build an article, so there's no where to merge this one year campaign. Star Mississippi 01:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 01:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyPitch

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

Written by the founder and had a local burst of attention when it launched out of Tulane but it no longer exists and did not appear to ever attain sustained notability. The featured referenced in the article is just an overview of the competition nothing approaching GNG. Star Mississippi 01:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Louisiana. Star Mississippi 01:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sourcing found, defunct website. Delete. 01:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaktree b (talk • contribs)
Delete The fact that the site is defunct means that new sources aren't very likely to pop up. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen LoPorto

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sources to show notability. When our article says a 25-year-old is a child actor this is a pretty good showing that there is not enough coverage of the person to justify an article, since they have not been a child for at least 8 years, although I doubt many would call a 17-year-old a "child" actor, so it has probably been longer than that that the article was really up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not fulfill notability requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RV University

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

Article created in mainspace, sent to draft, now identical article re-created in mainspace. Treating as an objection to draftification, so sending here. Fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources. Slywriter (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Slywriter (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m the one who draftified the original version. Instead of improving the draft as suggested, author recreated it in main space without improving it. I see no significant independent secondary sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe: it was Hatchens who draftified RV University. Are you related? wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think this has been created several times. I draftified one version of it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I misremembered. See User talk:Sdrqaz#Handling a duplicate of a Draft article in namespace I was checking new pages and found a draft duplicate, so tried to delete the mainspace version but found out I had to delete the draft instead. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per this by The Hindu, this by The Free Press Journal, this by CNN-News18, this by The New Indian Express, and so on. The article should be expanded instead of delete. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources listed are press releases.Slywriter (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No specific opinion, but in the past we've tended to consider all universities that aren't degree mills to be notable. Is there some doubt as to the status, or is this because of the change in the guidelines for companies? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and suppose the topic is of significance as other similar universities have pages on wikipedia. I am OK if it is moved to draft till I update it significantly. --- Sanjay Chitnis 07:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Extant coverage is all about the launch. Given that the university started as recently as last year, I'm not optimistic of any WP:SIRS coverage coming forth in the next couple of years at a minimum. About the presumption of notability of Indian universities, see the comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geetanjali_University which list a number of articles on universities deleted at AfD. Hemantha (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Richard Harris

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the person you replace in a soap opera role later goes on to be a top performing big name actor, does not immediately make you notable. There are no signs of notability here, and Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching ProQuest, Google News, etc. yields a handful of results, but none of them seem to provide Harris with the sort of in-depth coverage needed for a GNG/WP:BASIC pass. I don't think that any of his roles (mostly minor appearances) are sufficiently "significant" to trigger WP:NACTOR, so he doesn't seem to be notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator - convinced that this is not about an neologism. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political hypocrisy

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

Articles on neologisms need to provide a discussion of the use of the term. It is taken from Runciman (2008) but not evidence that the neologism has ever caught on. "Case study" seems more like original research, but probably lifted from Runciman too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hawkeye7. To solve the problem with the title of the article ("Political hypocrisy") , and neologisms policy, I could easily change the title to Hypocrisy in policy. As for the case study, it took Albertatiran and me a lot of work to edit the section in my sandbox before publishing it, and if it is still problematic, we could work on it more if we know where exactly it looks like a original research. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hawkeye7! The title 'Case study' is certainly not lifted from Runciman; I've never read that source. About the content of that section, while I was only involved in editing the article, it's evidently taken from various sources (besides probably Runciman) and is very unlikely to be original research based on my prior interactions with Ghazaalch. Albertatiran (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was too hasty in nominating the article and should have posted on the talk page instead. I couldn't tell whether the article was supposed to be about the book, the neologism or the subject. I thought it was about the neologism, as the main sources were Runciman (who coined it) and Ghosh, who is reviewing the book. Although Michael Gerson uses it (again, quoting Runciman's book), so maybe it is getting a bit of traction. Deletion is not cleanup so I will close the AfD unless someone else wants to weigh in. But since we are here:

The article needs to make it clear whether it is about the book, the neologism or the subject. This lack of clarity is what brought it here.
The first sentence needs to make it clear whether it refers to intra-state (party) politics or state actors. Or, for that matter, individuals. ie the scope of the article is uncertain.
Political philosophers, practitioners, and authors have dealt with hypocrisy in politics and when it is cause for concern in democracies. This is supposed to be a summary of the article, but the article never comes to grips with this issue. Like when exactly is it a cause for concern, and what are the "certain varieties of hypocrisy" that "are fundamentally harmful to liberalism"?
Today, the word hypocrisy commonly refers to public statements of principle that differ from an individual's private practices. But we go on to talk about public practices not private ones.
This definition is problematic; if a junkie tells you that doing smack is a bad idea, she can be accused of hypocrisy under that definition, but it won't make her wrong. In the words of the lead, "it is these acts that matter in the end, not the actor's hypocrisy". Except that that issue is not in the body either.
Another definition of hypocrisy is "the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or... the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion." [41] I think that definition is what is being used in many cases. The connection to moral authority and religion should be explored.
While you're at it, move the footnotes section header down to where References is and move References below the reflist template. And link liberal democracy.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Hawkeye7. I tried to modify the article accordingly.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Altamaha River. Hog Farm _Talk 01:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beards Creek (Altamaha River tributary)

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

Contested WP:BLAR to its parent body of water, Altamaha River . Per WP:GEOLAND, natural features are notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". In this case, there appears to be no significant sourcing beyond databases and maps, which means it would fail GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundling Mushmelon Creek as that has been reverted as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect BOTH to Altamaha River. Djflem (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Djflem Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Little Piney Creek (Missouri). ✗plicit 10:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary)

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

Contested WP:BLAR to its parent body of water, Little Piney Creek (Missouri) . Per WP:GEOLAND, natural features are notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". In this case, there appears to be no significant sourcing beyond databases and maps, which means it would fail GEOLAND.

Also going to bundle these under the same grounds:

♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hmm ... so a stream that is ~ 10 miles long, flows under three state highways and has a recreation area named for it is "not notable"? I suppose if some two bit actor or politician had fished or taken a swim in the streams waters - then it would be "notable"? Based on that you've got a lot of deleting to do ... as there are thousands of articles about geographic features that will fail your criteria. Vsmith (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as it should be. Not everything needs an article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "my" criteria, they're the community's. But yes! We do have a lot of pruning to do in many topic areas :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing found beyond geographical databases. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yes, indeed, there is a lot of clean up to do and it's quite unfortunate that someone mass-produced thousands of articles with so little sourcing. I'm baffled what state highways have anything to do with it: if there's not coverage about it, it shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Also confused where the comment about swimming in it comes from because the answer to that is no. Reywas92^Talk 22:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2017 or so there was an article creation drive and many of these "stream articles" were created in response most by another user and many expanded a bit from one or two lined stubs by me. State highway bridges typically are labelled with the name of the stream flowing beneath. Sorry about your confusion re the swimming bit 'twas an attempt a humor ... as well as Wiki reality about the magic that "celebrity connection" has for notability. Sourcing typically includes GNIS data as well as reference to USGS topo maps or a Delorme atlas which is derived from those maps. Seems the USGS should be a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable, but it does not provide significant "information beyond statistics and coordinates," per what is stated in GEOLAND. On the other hand, there is significant information about Little Piney Creek in and of itself. For example, this 30-page USGS report about erosion on the creek banks is significant coverage. There's also this article that talks about fish stocks in the creek. (I've added them to that article - should have before.) I didn't find anything nearly as significant about the other streams, which is why I redirected them and not Little Piney Creek. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that you are mistaken, the referenced topographic map quadrangle provide abundant relevant information about the terrain, adjacent communities, road networks, etc. Or are you perhaps not aware of the value of those maps ...? Vsmith (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all basic statistical data. GEOLAND requires coverage that goes "beyond statistics and coordinates". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comment? Have you never used or looked at a topographic map? Those maps provide detailed info about the stream and its surroundings. A good map is worth a thousand words of prose about a particular location. Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and since we've now reached the stage of the discussion where we pointlessly and rhetorically ask each other if we can read, let me ask you in return: have you read the sourcing section of our notability guideline for geographic features? I imagine not, because - and I'll quote it for you to save you the clicking - "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the guideline is rather absurd and apparently designed to eliminate a large number of potential valid articles and make sure the encyclopedia in quite incomplete - contrary to its founders intent. Vsmith (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ALL to Little Piney Creek (Missouri) Djflem (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Twining

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time for Wikipedia to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Cuchna

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be an unsourced BLP. BLPs need to have reliable sources for everything they say. Since there are no reliable sources, this article can say nothing at all and thus needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Tiputoa

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is this source that discusses a scholarship for the subject, and is borderline if it meets GNG [42]. Other sources are trivial such as this one [43], "Dwayne Tiputoa bagged a second-half hat-trick to complete a 5-0 romp.", and that's it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG. I am trying to not get too exicited that we are finally starting to require articles to be substantive and more than sports tables to include them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tui Tapasei

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Also did a WP:BEFORE search without the middle name and no substantial sources were found. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not impressed by sources in article, all are trivial mentions. Searched in Google, ProQuest and DuckDuckGo and failed to find anything better than his GSA profile page. GNG fail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Howard Corbin

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

Non-notable television producer due to having no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, this fails WP:GNG with no reliable secondary references PaulPachad (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[auto-1] "Highly Rated Researchers (h>100)". Retrieved 29 May 2022.

[1]