< June 03	June 05 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More coverage found, the community has consensus. Please add the new sources to the article. Less Unless (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Planet Report[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE on Newspapers.com, GNews, GBooks, and ProQuest. yielded extremely few results: press releases, superficial name-drops, and TV Guide listings. It's mentioned in passing in articles about Animal Planet or Michelle Beadle, but these confirm only that the show exists and nothing more. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:51, 4 June 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?)} 23:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is an extensive article in Rocky Mount Telegram while the other sources provide less coverage but enough in my opinion to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
1. Dawson, Diana (2005-11-19). "Animal Planet reports the news that makes us smile". Rocky Mount Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "In a world fraught with war, environmental problems and economic cricses, it's the happy animal stories that make us smile. Every week you and your children can pick up a half-hour of them on the new "Animal Planet Report." The weekly program, hosted by Michelle Beadle, premiered earlier this month and continues every Friday on Animal Planet. It's created in partnership with award-winning journalist Linda Ellerbee and her production company, Lucky Duck Productions. These are the "Hey, Martha" stories of the animal world that make viewers say ... This week your children get to see ..."
2. "Wildlife Highlights: 12 April to 15 May Animal Planet Report. Animal Planets, Friday from 7 April, 8PM". BBC. 2006. Retrieved 2022-06-06 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "A half-hour weekly current events series featuring the latest developments from the natural world, such as a report on the multi-million dollar business that has grown up around wolfwatching in Yellowstone Park, the new frog species found in the rainforests of Sri Lanka and the tale of a baby hippo adopted by a giant tortoise. Presented by Tim Vincent and Maxine Trump."
3. "Animal Planet to launch news show". United Press International. 2005-11-07. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article notes: "Cable TV's Animal Planet Monday announced its new "The Animal Planet Report," a half-hour weekly current events series. The show hosted by Michelle Beadle and produced by Linda Ellerbee's Lucky Duck Productions, will bow Friday at 9 p.m. ET, the Silver Spring, Md.-based network said in a news release."
4. Chater, David (2006-04-07). "Viewing guide". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-10-09. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article notes: "The former Blue Peter presenter Tim Vincent hosts this lively new magazine programme reporting from the animal kingdom. In this first part we meet the three-times winner of the coveted world’s ugliest dog prize, go to the Yellowstone National Park to look at how the reintroduction of wolves has gone, and find out about the Kenyan dog that “adopted” an abandoned human baby."
5. Cutler, Jacqueline (2005-11-19). "Grim but true study of American settlers - Mom's tvlog - A week's worth of family viewing". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article notes: ""Animal Planet Report" (Friday, 9 p.m., Animal Planet). In this half- hour weekly show devoted to animal happenings, host Michelle Beadle tells of a rescued manatee, and how more vets are needed in rural areas. Maggie, an overweight elephant in an Alaskan zoo, gets a diet and exercise regimen - a custom-made treadmill. Let's hope there's enough animal news to keep this show going."
6. "Catch It Tonight". Bucks County Courier Times. 2006-06-06. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article notes: "The speedy patas monkey is discussed as well as their ability to reach speeds of 30 miles per hour and a Swiss man gets his weather report from animals."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Animal Planet Report to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources seems particularly substantial to me. Most are just a couple sentence blurbs in "what's on TV tonight" catch-all articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive article in Rocky Mount Telegram while the other sources provide less coverage. I think there is enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline but I view this case as not as strong as some of the other topics. I oppose deletion as a redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming would be a more policy-based approach per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Kvng (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources cited by Cunard add up to sufficient coverage to write a short but competent article on the subject and so meets WP:GNG requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources. Needs work, but easily meets GNG. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oer Cunard. starship .paint (exalt) 07:32, 10 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 23:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cemal Faruk[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. WP:TOOSOON for notability. Filmography of two years Whiteguru (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Indonesia, and Turkey. Whiteguru (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Kadı Message 17:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:NACTOR, and WP:TNT. Clearly, this is a mess: the language is unclear, there are red links galore, and his films lack their own articles. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 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. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paramveer Saini[edit]

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

Local politician. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found in Hindi to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:MILL, and WP:POLOUTCOMES. This is the equivalent of a county commissioner; the thousands of local government are called the district councils. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's GAA (Carbery)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable local club Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As part of a WP:BEFORE, I have found and added a number of refs to support the text. Several of these sources (granted mostly in regional/provincial news sources) cover the subject as a primary topic. And hence also support a claim to notability under GNG. While not overwhelming, there would seem to be sufficient coverage to warrant a keep. Certainly outright deletion wouldn't seem appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on many GAA clubs - both large & small. This is the nature of the organization. There are clubs in every parish and are active in local competitions. We need to keep these clubs here as they are integral to the nature of the GAA.

Pmunited (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is short but well sourced with citations in every part. Sources include The Echo, The Southern Star, The Corkman. None of those are part of the club (I think). --Gaois (talk) 22:49, 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 redirect to List of programs broadcast by Speed#Series programming. Viable AtD with no one contesting it. History is there when/if sourcing is identified. Star Mississippi 15:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SuperCars Exposed[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE turned up one press release, one less than sentence-long mention in an article on Speed Network, superficial name-drops in articles on Tanner Foust, and a crapton of TV guide listings with nothing better in sight. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, due to the high volume of PRODs at this time, I am unable to document a rationale for some of my DEPRODs. WP:DEPROD does not require supplying a rationale. Please WP:AGF that I have one in each case. In this case a merge or redirect to Speed (TV network) is a potential WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do that, because literally EVERY SINGLE TIME I redirect, someone undoes it. Sometimes not even a full SECOND after I do it. What the hell gives? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall reverting any of your redirects so I don't know what gives. Who is doing these reverts? What reasons do they give? Redirects are useful to readers and often a good compromise for editors. ~Kvng (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply evidence that "literally EVERY SINGLE TIME" redirects are undone. Without such evidence anyone reading this is likely to dismiss it as hyperbole. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some rule they made up that deprodded content cannot be redirected without discussion, and that doing so is "circumventing discussion'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are prepared to have a deletion discussion, so why are you not prepared to have a discussion about a redirect? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried discussing redirects before. I wait for months and months and no one discusses it. Then after months, I'm like "okay, no one's contesting it so I'll go for it". Then BAM, two seconds later it's undone because I "didn't discuss it". Bitch, I tried for MONTHS and nobody said a word. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your "two seconds" looks very much like ridiculous hyperbole. We really can't get anywhere unless you provide evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be prodding anything to begin with if a redirect is an option. That's your problem. Also many articles that were valid, you tried to eliminate with prod, then when that failed, tried to get rid of them with a redirect, then took them to AFD and they ended up as Keep. Many have told you that you overuse prod too much, just too many places at once to go through. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer:_prods_and_AfDs is the place to discuss this though. Dream Focus 15:24, 9 June 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?)} 23:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect as suggested by Cunard. - Coverage was not significant and so WP:N not met. Google provided sources like this, this, and this as examples. First is a forum, second is a TV guide, third is a link to watch the show. These allow for verifiability of the shows existence at best, they do not constitute significant coverage. Newspapers.com links nothing except to old-school in-paper TV guides listing the time it aired. The only proper news article that I could find mentioning the subject did so trivially here. I could not find anything on Wayback either. This failure to meet notability also presents another issue - being that the lack of sources means that the article as a stub has no reasonable prospect for expansion. There is little verifiable information to be found, and so in this case I think the fact it is unable to be improved to a full, finished, concise stub adds weight to an argument for deletion (however none of these considerations impact on a redirect to a list citing the show). MaxnaCarter (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such-change47 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to List of programs broadcast by Speed#Series programming (with the history preserved under the redirect)? Cunard (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll always support a redirect when they make sense, as is the case here. Thanks @Cunard - MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Such-change47 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Speed#Series programming (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. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the show. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Cunard said. Dream Focus 16:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Cunard. starship .paint (exalt) 07:25, 10 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space Hero[edit]

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

Textbook WP:TOOSOON. Nothing after the initial announcement has occurred. No valid redirect target. Deprodded for no reason Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, due to the high volume of PRODs at this time, I am unable to document a rationale for some of my DEPRODs. WP:DEPROD does not require supplying a rationale. Please WP:AGF that I have one in each case. In this case, AFAIK, there's no such thing as a textbook WP:TOOSOON. The closest we have for this topic is WP:NYF and I don't see an obvious and uncontroversial argument for deleting this there. ~Kvng (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious and uncontroversial argument is that there is literally one source and nothing else to say about the show other than "it will happen soon". Nothing else has been said about it yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious to me but if this WP:SNOWballs, trust me, I'll learn from it at adjust my DEPRODding. ~Kvng (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer I agree this article was a stub with only one reference, but please see my keep argument below. Please note that this was not one of those cases where it took heaps of effort to find all the sources, I acknowledge there have been times I have been able to find no sources while skilled hunters located a barrage of sources hidden somewhere out of range of a search engine. However this show turns up pages and pages of great sourcing, not just one. MaxnaCarter (talk) 10:13, 5 June 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?)} 23:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick cursory google search shows a bunch of sources for this. Huggums537 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bordering on speedy, if TPH feels it warranted based on the following.

Significant coverage exists in Smithsonian Magazine, Kids News, New York Post, Axios, PR News Wire. These sources alone demonstrate the article content is verifiable by reliable, independent sources covering the show significantly and in detail, and so the general notability guideline is met. The subject has attracted wide media attention for at least two years now, showing sustained attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.
While it is true that unaired shows are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles due to a lack of notability, this show has gone beyond a mere announcement and is in fact widely discussed by very highly prominent media sources in variety and detail. As this show in my view meets notability, I do not think it it is WP:TOOSOON, which is from an essay that acknowledges media can merit an article if any notability criteria is met per WP:N.
Lastly, and while it would be sufficient for the sources merely to exist, I have grown the article from approx 1.7k bytes to over 4k bytes, and added a number of references into the article per this diff.

In my view, this is a clear case for keep. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MaxnaCarter. starship .paint (exalt) 07:33, 10 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 the article should be improved, not deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Sing[edit]

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

Article almost entirely sourced to IMDb, which is not acceptable by itself, and is basically only a list of songs; one source that is acceptable (Entertainment Weekly) is plainly not enough. Instead of deleting, I propose that it be moved to the draft so that sourcing (off-line or on-line) could be found. The previous discussion seemed to indicate some notability, but nothing was done since then. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found multiple news articles about the series' history which I've added to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but since you've used the opportunity, maybe it's better expand it further still. Better not to balance on the edge of passing WP:N but actually solidly assert that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to sources added. Improving the article is something that can be done outside the time constraints of AfD, but the sources have been shown to WP:NEXIST and allow the article to remain while improvements continue. -2pou (talk) 23:07, 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 keep. A discussion on whether to redirect / merge can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Liechtenstein[edit]

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

I redirected this to History of Liechtenstein, but was reverted. This list is nearly empty, and the few articles it points to are nearly empty as well (and could do with a discussion of their own). E.g. the first one, 2007 in Liechtenstein, just has a joke trivia entry. Perhaps the Template:Years in Liechtenstein could be added at the bottom of the "History" article to help people who really want to access these "years" articles. But for most readers, arriving at this "list of years" article and then the underlying individual years will just be a disappointment instead of something helpful. Fram (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Europe. Fram (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make very good points. I couldn't agree more on the articles such as 2007 in Liechtenstein and any others that are nothing more than a single event being deleted. You are also right on the fact that there really are not many 'year in' articles for Liechtenstein to begin with, so the article is in essence a lot of red links, which is certainly not much of a page. The reason I still created the article with this in mind is because every other European nation has one, and I felt that Liechtenstein should have one too. The years I added on the page were only until the year 1900, which is about as far back as I thought year in Liechtenstein articles would reasonably have a chance of being created, but that probably is a push too. I really hope I did not offend you when undoing your edit and I'm sorry if it looks like I disregarded it. That really wasn't what I meant to do, I even added a citation to remove the unsourced tag, but I understand that is not the issue with this article. I am going to edit the article again removing all year links until 2000, but if there is a problem with this as well, it makes sense if you would like to revert the article back to a redirect and Template:Years in Liechtenstein again, but I hope it doesn't come to that. One thing the article does have going for it is a link to the nation by decade, which is something the template does not include. I hope what I am saying makes sense and thank you for discussing your stance on the article rather deleting it, I am glad I was able to respond. Thanks, Johnson524 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All articles like this are fine, shouldn't have to have AFDs of them separately. If there isn't enough information for articles by years, do it by decades instead. We need a bot to get things listed in the many categories and sub-categories to properly populate these lists. Dream Focus 13:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an actual argument to keep them? Because your current "keep" is just an "it's fine". Fram (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  All nations listed this way, it a complete set, look odd to have any of them missing. Dream Focus 14:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  So, no actual argument, thanks. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both this list and the individual year articles to History of Liechtenstein. There is no reason to think such a small country would need by-year articles. The mere fact it's a country doesn't mean it needs a series of articles structured the same as countries hundreds or thousands of times larger. Make a Timeline of Liechtenstein if a bulleted format is preferred. Reywas92^Talk 13:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City all have some degree of by year coverage and are far smaller. This is especially true for Monaco and San Marino, and I am currently working on the Vatican. -- Johnson524 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, List of years in San Marino was created by you on 19 May 2022, so perhaps not really fair to include that one. As for e.g. Andorra, the page of "list of years..." links e.g. to 2010 in Andorra, which is a redirect to 2010s in Andorra, which has one single entry. One unsourced "scheduled" thing for the whole of the most recent decade. This is a good argument to delete / redirect more than just Liechtenstein, not to actually keep Liechtenstein. It is also indicative of why "keep this one, we have them for other countries" is not a valid argument either. Fram (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consistency is relevant in my opinion but I see what you mean. I have never worked with Andorra before but there is no argument for keeping a year in article which is a redirect. As per the article of discussion though, there are actually decent articles by year for Liechtenstein, so I don't think this article should meet the same fate as Andorra. -- Johnson524 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, Rename to Category:Decades in Liechtenstein and Merge annual articles into decades. The individual articles do not have enough content, and many of them do not even exist! Even after this merger there will not really be enough content, so that I would not oppose redirecting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have edited the article down to it's key information. No more red links for all of the 1900's as those articles don't seem like they are going to be made anytime soon. The article now is reduced to its key information; links to the existing year in Liechtenstein articles for the 2000's, links to the decades of Liechtenstein pre-2000's as the years are currently unmade, and categories relating to years in Liechtenstein. I don't really see a reason the article should not be kept now. --Johnson524 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, as the cruft has been removed. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it hasn't. E.g. the 2007 article still has that joke entry as only thing that actually happened that year. Fram (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Fram: Like I said earlier, I would be happy to ask for a deletion of that article, and I don't think there would be any opposition, but that shouldn't be the reason for the deletion of this article particularly. -- Johnson524 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Fram: Ok, to remove this reason for the deletion of this article, I have just added multiple relevant events to the article 2007 in Liechtenstein and a sports section, making the article relevant and no longer in need of deletion 😃 --Johnson524 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not problematic anymore. LearnIndology (talk) 08:26, 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 redirect to Shep Messing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shep Unplugged[edit]

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

Nothing on ProQuest, Google News, or Newspapers.com. "Shep Unplugged" + "Shep Messing" turned up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors on a regular Google search. Prod and redirect both contested. Given the complete lack of literally anything verifiable, possible WP:HOAX. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 4 June 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?)} 20:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Generic ex-athlete analysis halftime segment. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shep Messing#Broadcaster per StarMississippi per WP:CHEAP and preserve history. Nate • (chatter) 17:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to redirect because there is literally zero confirmation that the show even bears this name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not remotely a hoax, but nor is it notable. Redirect to either Shep Messing or the Red Bulls. Star Mississippi 14:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried redirecting, but someone decided they didn't like my redirect, so here we are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also what proof do you have that it's not a hoax? I found literally nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is on the Red Bulls' site and on MSG. They host a halftime show, which doesn't happen to be notable but hoax has an entirely different meaning. Star Mississippi 17:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources uses the name "Shep Unplugged" for the show though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which still doesn't mean it's a hoax. A hoax would be if Shep Messing didn't host a halftime show on MSG. He does, along with every other athlete as @Mrschimpf said. Star Mississippi 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't confirm the title of the show. I've found literally no sources whatsoever verifying the title of the show. "Shep Unplugged" + "MSG" gets six hits on Google, all Wikipedia mirrors. It shouldn't be this hard to verify the freaking name of the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is it would be on MSG site or possibly Red Bulls' media guide, the latter of which does not appear to be online that I've found. But there's no reason not to redirect it to his broadcasting work, which is verified to BLP standards. Star Mississippi 19:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge something we literally can't verify even exists under the alleged title? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shep Messing (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. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even verify the show exists, so I don't think a redirect is warranted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shep Messing. Clearly not a hoax. Having a redirect and history under a name we haven't completely verified is preferable to deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What proof do you have that it even exists? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the sources found by Star Mississippi above ~Kvng (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and @Skynxnex's below as well. We have verified the show existed. No one is arguing the sources reach notability (they don't), but the show exist/ed. Star Mississippi 18:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, since when is a blogspot blog a RS? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for notability but it verifies that a program under that name existed which is the issue you are utterly bludgeoning this discussion with. But I'm done debating with you since you're clearly not arguing in good faith anymore when it says " MSG.com's Video Library (Check out Shep Unplugged, a recap of the Revs match" A blog verifying that network coverage under this name existed is not "joe schmoe's personal blogspot"? Do better Star Mississippi 20:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you found do not mention the show by name. The only "blog" I found verying the show's name is the Blogspot link shared by Skynxnex below. Are you really going to accept the blog Skynxnex found as evidence? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find the word "Unplugged" ANYwhere in this source or this source. Are you seeing it somewhere that I'm not? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also get zero results on google for the phrase "MSG.com's Video Library". Where are you pulling THAT from? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shep Messing or Red Bulls (anchored or not). The evidence I've found is a New York Red Bulls fan blog post from April 2008 that mentions it, [1](archive: [2]): MSG.com's Video Library (Check out Shep Unplugged, a recap of the Revs match, and more). Sadly, it appears that MSG Networks pretty completely have lost/scrubbed basically all content from before ~2018 but the original Wiki article seems earnest enough plus the non-Wiki sourced blog post makes it seem to have existed. Skynxnex (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So some joe schmoe's personal blogspot is a reliable source now, huh? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shep Messing. There's definitely enough circumstantial evidence to prove that this thing existed, but at no time should it have ever been labeled as notable, and the fact it falls in the 2000s (the pre-social-media, few-live-websites-today "dark ages" for this type of search) does not do any favors. I submit a forum post from 2008: He has also been the lead analyst for the MetroStars and the re-branded New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer for several years. During these broadcasts, Shep hosts a segment during halftime entitled Shep Unplugged. Shep is usually outspoken during this segment about league issues and global soccer news. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because a forum is totally a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shep Messing. Who cares if it's a HOAX or not. It's a redirect. Anyone who thinks that it exists will search for it and will simply be directed to a person who does exist. Pure deletion might just allow someone to recreate the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a target that a.) doesn't mention it and b.) objectively cannot mention it, because no sources exist to verify IT EVEN EXISTED. That makes PERFECT sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything that you won't argue? DonaldD23 talk to me 20:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is there TO argue with "a blogspot blog is not a reliable source"? It's in black and white in WP:SPS. So why are we arbitrarily waiving it here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument would only relevant if someone wanted to keep the article. All current discussion is towards delete or redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a point in redirection if there is objectively no way to mention the show in the target. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shep Messing#Broadcaster and preserve history. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Agree with Nate, Sammi Brie and Donaldd23. Don't WP:BLUDGEON me, thank you. starship .paint (exalt) 07:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shep Messing#Broadcaster You can find the videos of the guy around and watch them yourself if you bothered looking. I found him mentioned here http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/07/conflict_of_interest.html with a comment statement about his "unplugged" segment. I believe it was a real thing. Not enough information for a standalone article so just redirect it. Dream Focus 04:30, 11 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 Outdoor Channel#Content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Gallery (TV series)[edit]

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

All results on ProQuest were press releases or directory listings. Prod and redirect both contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:57, 4 June 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?)} 20:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this [3]. Not enough on its own. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Cunard ~~Delete~~ - I am not able to find any reliable, independent, secondary sources demonstrating significant coverage. Only primary, links to watch, etc. Nothing on Newspapers.com except the source cited above, nothing on Gale, nothing on Wayback, nothing on Google. MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such-change47 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Outdoor Channel#Content (with the history preserved under the redirect)? Cunard (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard yes, good find. MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outdoor Channel#Content (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. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject other than the source linked by Donaldd23. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No need to preserve the history of an unsourced stub, and disambiguated redirects are rarely useful. If more is found, this can be recreated at a later date. Avilich (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard. WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. If I type "Shooting Gallery" into the search box the page comes up as a suggestion, thus the redirect will still be of navigational benefit to readers. NemesisAT (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outdoor Channel#Content. Ligit search target. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Cunard said. starship .paint (exalt) 07:34, 10 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Princes[edit]

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

Article has numerous problems (see maintenance tags) and is also written in-universe. Each book in the series has its own article already. Let's WP:TNT this glorified fanpage. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Science fiction and fantasy. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in NYT obit, covered in Publisher's Weekly [4], mentioned in Locus magazine interview, and apparently mentioned in 'LANGFORD, DAVID. "Growing Up, Striking Back: Revenge in the Work of Jack Vance." Jack Vance: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography (2000): 99.' to which I have not yet sought access. There are more; that's just for starters. No disagreement that cleanup is in order; feel free to do so without waiting for this to close. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's something I thought of just after putting through the AfD. As I mentioned, each of the books in this series has its own page which consists of a plot summary and not much else. How about deleting all the in-universe stuff that's here now and merging those three pages into this one? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes notability expectations. However, the nominator is correct that it is a real mess but then again it is pretty much unchanged since 2006 and therefore represents a much earlier evolution of Wikipedia's standards around article structure - which is not a reason to delete. I think merging the content of any page about one of the five individual books into this article, along with things like Kirth Gersen which don't add much to the content, redirecting the titles, is an excellent idea. MarcGarver (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As discussed, I have performed what turned out to be a 6-way merge. I think the article is now much improved. Since there are still a few unsourced claims re publication, I've left the one tag up. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:13, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Lives[edit]

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

"Sex Lives" + "Jay Grdina" got no results on ProQuest. Searching for "Sex Lives" + "Playboy TV" on the same was entirely false positives; just uses of the phrase "sex lives" in terms unrelated to the show. A straight Google search of "Sex Lives" + "playboy TV" turned up just IMDb (from which the plot synopis here seems to be copied) and episodes of the show on sketchy looking porn sites and absolutely no verifiable content. I'm honestly not expecting to find much in the way of RS for a porn show but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 4 June 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?)} 19:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show certainly did exist, but, literally no one seems to have taken notice of it. PlayboyTV doesn't even deem it worthy enough to maintain its old website, so no option but to delete this. I would also note that the de-prod was somewhat deceptive - "Deletion contested, may meet WP:NTV". WP:NTV is a failed subject-specific notability guideline proposal, thus in its current state is just an essay. While anyone can de-prod for any reason, or no reason, this made it look like there is a sub notability guide that this may meet. There is not. Zaathras (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras thank you for reminding me of this. I will stop using this DEPROD rationale going forward. The sentiment in the essay is useful however. Someone who assumes that a nationally or internationally aired program is not notable just because there are no supporting sources cited in the article, probably has not searched thoroughly enough. Of course, this program could be an exception. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trashy, non-notable TV show.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think something being trashy is a suitable reason for deletion. — Jumbo T (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, "trashy" was a simple descriptor, not the deletion rationale. "Non-notable" is the important bit. Zaathras (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent RS coverage to support any WP:GNG claim. Even the notoriously unreliable Luke Ford reference is a promotional press release. Unremarked and unremarkable porn. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Icons[edit]

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

Could only find a few passing mentions here and there: directory listings, name-drops in articles about Animal Planet, etc. The "Star Wars" episode got an article but I was unable to confirm anything else about this show beyond its mere existence. That it's been an unsourced stub since 2007 is a sign that the show made no impact whatsoever, and it definitely fails the WP:RS test. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:25, 4 June 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?)} 19:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything related to this program during my search, which reinforces how run of the mill this show was.TH1980 (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hooks, Barbara (2005-11-17). "Pay TV - Wednesday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article reviews Animal Icons: Jaws. The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Just when you thought it was safe to switch the set back on. Jaws the movie was a box-office hit, but how close did Jaws come to the animal it portrayed? This edition of Animal Icons is more about the pretend shark than the real shark, which is fine by me, but may disappoint viewers genuinely interested in sharks."
2. Hooks, Barbara (2005-10-27). "Wednesday - Pay TV - Preview". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article reviews Animal Icons: King Kong. The article provides 170 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Without King Kong there would be no Lord of the Rings or Jurassic Park or Wallace and Gromit for that matter. In the first of a series celebrating the animal icons of film and TV, New Zealand director Peter Jackson reveals that he saw the movie when he was nine and resolved there and then to pursue a career in film. King Kong, left, also pioneered stop-motion animation, paving the way for Wallace and his canine sidekick. ... This story behind the story reveals how he was conceived and the trailblazing special effects that brought him to life."
3. Ellis, Scott (2005-06-19). "Pay TV". The Sun-Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Animal Icons: Star Wars Creatures, Animal Planet, Sunday, 7.30pm. Especially since we're currently in the grip of another round of Star Wars mania, it's probably little surprise that most kids list Wookiees, Gungans, Ewoks, Bantha or even something as slimy and sinister as a Dianoga as their favourite animal. But where did George Lucas and his animators get the inspiration for their galaxy of creatures? This fun special tracks down the animals that were caricaturised to create the various Star Wars beasties."
4. Durden, Douglas (2005-05-14). "One to Watch - Animal Icons 9 P.M. Wednesday, Animal Planet". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article provides 163 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Did you ever wonder where the idea for Jabba the Hutt came from? Or what exactly is a Boga and will there be merchandising? Or maybe how can every media outlet on the face of the Earth tie itself in with "Star Wars: Episode III"? Animal Planet has the answer to most of the above this week in an hourlong special that looks at the origin of George Lucas' galactic menagerie, from Ewoks to Wookiees and how these fantasy creatures are inspired by actual animals found on Earth."
5. Weintraub, Joanne (2005-05-18). "Tribute to Star Wars Animals". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article provides 258 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Animal Planet is going after bigger game tonight, including George Lucas' Hutts and Wookiees. Lucas not only appears on camera but also co-produced Animal Icons: Star Wars, a tribute to the universe he created. Yes, it's an hourlong infomercial for Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith -- which, conveniently, is scheduled to open in the United States at midnight. But as commercials go, it's an entertaining one."
6. Hooks, Barbara (2005-06-16). "Pay TV - Sunday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article reviews Animal Icons: Star Wars Creatures. The article provides 119 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Hosted by actor Anthony Daniels (aka C-3PO), Animal Icons takes us behind the scenes to meet the conceptual artists, animators, special effects technicians and voiceover artists who brought the Star Wars safari to life."
7. Van Valkenburg, Nancy (2005-05-14). "On TV: Animal Planet special explains why 'Star Wars' creatures are out of this world". Standard-Examiner. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
  The article notes: "With guaranteed blockbuster "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" due in theaters Thursday, Animal Planet hopes viewers will warm up with "Animal Icons: Star Wars Creatures." It debuts at 7 p.m. Wednesday and repeats at 10 p.m. Anthony Daniels, who voices robot C-3PO in all of the "Star Wars" movies, narrates the hourlong special."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. Hooks, Barbara (2006-11-09). "Pay TV - Thursday, November 16". The Age. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
    The article provides 43 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Animal Icons: Comic Book Creatures, Animal Planet Batman (pictured), Spider Man and Mighty Mouse - as comic book heroes, each has drawn their superpowers from the animal kingdom. In this episode, Animal Icons compares these characters with the real animals that inspired their creation."
  2. O'Neill, Phelim (2005-11-17). "The Guardian: The Guide: Television: Saturday 3rd December: Watch This". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
    The article provides 82 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Has Animal Planet exhausted the natural world? Seems like it, given that this series is devoted to iconic animal figures from the cultural world. King Kong and Jaws are to come o this week it's Garfield. Created by Jim Davis, the fat and lazy cat is big (the strip is read in 111 countries, apparently), although quite why he deserves an episode, and Snoopy doesn't, takes some explaining. Perhaps it's something to do with the behind-the-scenes look at the recent feature film."
  3. Skegg, Martin (2006-12-23). "The Guardian: The Guide: Digital Television Saturday 23: pick of the day". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
    The article provides 72 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Pure seasonal froth. The animal icons in this instance are those that appear in TV shows and films - Snoopy, Santa's Little Helper in The Simpsons, The Muppets. It's smooth voiceover and cheesy music time - so much so that you think this must be ironic - and there's lots of talk of spiritual uplift and delightful traditions. But it's an American production, which shines through in the production values and the characters on offer."
  4. Kronke, David (2005-05-15). "Watch-O-Rama the Highlights and Lowlights of the Coming TV Week". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
    The article provides 81 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Think: Just in time to promote a movie that scarcely needs any extra hype comes this "documentary" about the film series' sundry colorful (and, yes, goofy) alien species. Don't think: The Jedi Knights are pretty much erased in Episode III - Revenge of the Sith. Just think how much more satisfying it would be if George Lucas indulged in Ewok-icide instead. In a nutshell: More Lucas hagiography in the guise of an Animal Planet show about nonexistent beasties. Nonetheless, essential for fanboys."
  5. Frame, Anna (2005-12-03). "Multichannel Choice - Saturday 3 December". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.
    The article reviews Animal Icons: Garfield. The article provides 22 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "If you're one of the 260 million people worldwide who read the comic-strip, you'll enjoy this gushing profile of the sardonic feline."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Animal Icons to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the "major" sources is about the Star Wars episode and still seems pretty non-substantial. I'll leave this up to what others think, but this is a borderline WP:REFBOMB to my eyes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks 2005a (144 words) is about Animal Icons: Jaws. Hooks 2005b (170 words) is about Animal Icons: King Kong. Cunard (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources shared by Cunard allow this to pass WP:GNG. A source doesn't have to be entirely or even mostly about the subject for it to count towards GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NemesisAT (talk • contribs)

The results still seem pretty meager. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources shared by Cunard are generally reliable and, as a whole, demonstrate more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG IME. ~Kvng (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. starship .paint (exalt) 07:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:56, 10 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) 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Olson (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Highest ranking ever was 112, but he lost 9 of his next 12 fights. Fight announcements, fight results, MMA database listings, and a bio on the web page of the gym where we worked are what I found. These all fail to show the significant independent coverage required by the GNG. Sandals2 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Sandals2 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMMA. Merko (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no evidence of WP notability. He fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMMA. Not likely to make a resurgence-Imcdc (talk) 11:22, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kitanna Richards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Kitanna Richards.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google to support inclusion on Wikipedia, non-notable subject. IrishOsita (talk) 14:24, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Name of Love (An Essay Poetry Book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:RS. There are literally zero reliable sources (Huff Post being a blog). Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not enough coverage to pass notability guidelines Less Unless (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shabri Prasad Singh[edit]

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

Fails GNG and the sources available in the article are mostly about the subject's single book entitled Borderline, that's to say the book might be notable but the subject is not. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 18:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT This was originally written by a paid editor and even despite cleanup from third party editors I still don't see a case for the author's notability. Subject still fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. The Indian news pieces are acceptable but I don't see enough for GNG. The WEF.org link isn't independent and the FPJ cite reads too fluffy for me to take seriously. The vast majority of humans will never be notable and of the few that are, many won't be notable until after they die. If this hadn't been written out of craven vanity they might've written about the book, instead. As we know there's commercial interest in this article staying live, I recommend salting the ground so it can never come back. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR. Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ((db-g11)) fits it like a glove. – Athaenara ✉ 15:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as a draft article that was accepted to mainspace after several rejections, I wanted to know if there was more to NAUTHOR, which is why my comment and queries at the article talk page prior to this AfD nomination. Does being the founder of a literature festival, curator of another, and director of a cultural festival, come under purview of NAUTHOR, or does combined coverage of those (which were facilitated because of the authorship, no doubt) contribute to notability? Jay (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jay The source linked at the end of the paragraph that claims these things, "Business News This Week", is extremely poor and unreliable in my opinion. Looking at these things in individuality, I do not think they add anything to notability given that they've no significance even at a regional level, they're part of something else. The thing she's director of, isn't itself notable. That said, I must say that combining all of this doesn't add anything to notability, unless these things are significant on their own. Even then, notability isn't inherited but one may argue differently. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 05:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combined coverage that has been facilitated because of authorship is in my opinion best for arguing the notability of the book, Borderline, but there's no article on that. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 05:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. The Hindustan Times is not of the same quality as the paper of record, India Times. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article seems to have had a chequered history, but it's been cleaned up and unorphaned. Looking for significant coverage in reliable sources, I think the Tribune India News Service and Hindustan Times show notability. Mujinga (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these sources in my opinion are too less to determine notability of the subject. However, thess could be argued for notability of the book. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 07:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the nominator and Chris troutman's and Bearian's comments; none of the sources presented really pass RS, and the repeated re-creation of this article by parties who seem to have a vested interest in it is good reason to salt. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Mujinga for cleaning up and improving the article. There is significant coverage for the author and the book, but not in a context outside of the book (which is what I was interested in, in my comment above). I understand that the author is working on a second book, but Delete for now, and keep the draftify option open for future. Jay (talk) 09:23, 10 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. Page creator can request restoration to Draft space at WP:REFUND should better sources emerge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amalis Marshall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 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) 18:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google to establish notability in addition to the article itself failing to do so. IrishOsita (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Amalis Marshall.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:53, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeet Patil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sumeet Patil

Indian art director who does not appear to satisfy creative notability or general notability. An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this does not. It says that he has developed a technique to allow the blind to paint, using fragrances. That is a credible claim of significance, but this is not an A7 nomination. The reference is 404-compliant, and so fails verifiability, which is a precondition to notability. It states that he received an award, but on verification, the award appears to be one that is given to children, and so is interesting, but does not establish notability. Other than that, the article consists of a filmography of films that are merely names. So there is nothing in the article itself to establish notability. A check of the references is not helpful. One is a promoted story. Another says that he received an award that appears to be given to children. Two of the references are 404-compliant, and four of them are IMDB. The IMDB references were not checked (because they were IMDB).

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	indianexpress.com	Reads like a promoted story	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	nationalbalbhavan.nic.in	Says that he received an award in 2004. The award appears to be given to children.	Yes	No, not a significant award	Yes	Yes
3	timesofindia	404 compliant		No
4	IMDB		Yes		No
5	IMDB		Yes		No
6	IMDB		Yes		No
7	timesofindia	404 compliant		No
8	IMDB		Yes		No

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Visual arts, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After repairing the 404 Times of India links, I've concluded the first one may be useful, but it's behind a paywall, with only 3 sentences showing. The second makes no mention of Sumeet Patil. Even if the first turns out to be significant and verifiable, one potential RS does not make a GNG case. There's no there there. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability under GNG or any SNG -- Ab207 (talk) 13:44, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FootGoal.pro[edit]

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

Non-notable website Mooonswimmer 17:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, and literally none of the sources even mention the website. Merko (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there are some more sources that I haven't added here yet. I have added one more that clearly mentions the website. Though the added sources are not a lot, but there are no promotional articles. SuccessfullWorld 08:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
Delete, preferably speedily, as having also assessed the citations prior to noticing Merko's comment above, I also observed that the sources do not mention the website and certainly do not corroborate the prose. I don't know if this would fall under WP:CSD#G11, as it's very clearly WP:PROMO with what I consider an effort to deceive with non-relevant sources making it appear more notable than it is. Also, says est in 2022 but infobox says 2020? There is too much not right about this that it can't be kept. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support a speedy deletion for this. Merko (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'll mention again, maybe there not a lot of sources mentioning the website (some not added yet). But I created this because I found an interesting football related site that shares its own content, based on deep research and doesn't just copy paste news that most of the sites do. SuccessfullWorld 08:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
Even if it gets mentioned 'somewhere', the sources must be reliable and provide significant coverage outside a trivial mention. Is it possible to provide WP:THREE such sources? A Google News publication page isn't one. Please check out WP:GNG and WP:NWEBSITE. Merko (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where is it directly mentioned? I can't see it QiuLiming1 (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was founded in 2020 and the 2022 was written mistakenly. It's already fixed. If you check the website, you'll see that it's live since 2020. SuccessfullWorld 10:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
There were also added some news sites mentioning the site. Does it count? SuccessfullWorld 09:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
Added sources merely cite FootGoal.pro in one sentence, this does not establish notability, and those sources themselves aren't exactly reliable. Merko (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs to have more coverage and in-depth articles. Does not pass GNG.Samanthany (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, as I mentioned in another comment, I thought this website deserves to be in Wikipedia because I found an interesting football related site that shares its own content, based on deep research and doesn't just copy paste news that most of the sites do.

Besides, I have made some changes and added more sources. SuccessfullWorld 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
Delete - only trivial mentions available. Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. The former then goes on to say Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content for which, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Since there is no in-depth information about this website from independent sources, it must go. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, as I mentioned in another comment, I thought this website deserves to be in Wikipedia because I found an interesting football related site that shares its own content, based on deep research and doesn't just copy paste news that most of the sites do.

More sources were added mentioning the website, but some were deleted from the page. Besides, website's articles are widely shared by other websites and used as a source even by Forbes. SuccessfullWorld 10:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyAni (talk • contribs)
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comes and Goes[edit]

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

Only has one source aside from charts, and it's from a site not listed at WP:RSMUSIC. Only other source I could fine is from Noisecreep but I'm not certain about that site's reliability. Has charted on multiple Billboard charts which is more than I can say for songs/albums that have survived my XfDs before, but I'm still not certain that's enough. QuietHere (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources I added which include details on the album getting entangled in court, along with another reputable review. Also the album made five charts, which is pretty non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. Sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp. Has multiple reliable sources and notable band.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:56, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PearlsOnly.com[edit]

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

Not a notable company - most references are to their own website, press releases, or junk sources like Amazon and BBB. They're mentioned in this book published by "Rich Dad Advisors Press" (reliability?) but the chapter was written by the company's owner, so it's not independent. No other usable sources found through WP:BEFORE. Spicy (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Companies, and Texas. Spicy (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, it's all passing mentions or non-notable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally a disambiguation page for the word "Penetangore", a river and/or town in Ontario, Canada. On 01:47, August 11, 2016‎ it inexplicably seems to have been converted substantially into its current state. Dglynch (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided are PR, churnalism, and passing mentions, and there does not appear to be anything else out there. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 11 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) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number Seven Yucai Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school; possibly redirect to an article on the local school district if such an article exists Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Zhang, Jiefu 张杰夫 (2018). 全日制远程教学研究：“互联网+”时代中国边远、民族地区教育创新模式 [Research on Full-time Distance Teaching: the Educational Innovation Model in China's Remote and Ethnic areas in the Era of "Internet +"] (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Book [zh]. ISBN 9787303242344. Retrieved 2022-06-05 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "成都七中育才学校成都七中育才学校的前身是成都1957年开办的一所市属普通中学。1997 年为适应成都现代化教育发展需要,在成都市教育局领导下,依托百年名校全国示范性高中成都七中,该学校改名为成都七中育才学校。办学20多年来,学校始终坚持走“文化养校”的发展道路,坚持“卓尔不群、大器天下”的核心价值诉求,坚守“重德育才、面向未来、最优发展”的办学理念,坚持信息技术与教育教学的深度融合,努力建设智慧型校园、数字化学校。目前,成都七中育才学校已成为西部乃至全国的一所初中名校。 [paragraph break] 2005年,成都七中育才学校开启全日制远程教学工作,通过多媒体教学示范班,将优质教育辐射到边远、民族地区学校,让近万名学生与该校学子共享优质教育资源,在保障育才学子实现最优发展的同时,成全了越来越多的远端学子、远端教师、远端学校、远端区域教育。截至2017年,成都七中育才学校的优质教育资源已辐射到云南、贵州、四川、江西、广西、甘肃、重庆,常年与260多所学校、近1万名教师、近8万名学生分享优质教育资源,极大地促进了教育公平,推动了教育均衡发展。"
  From Google Translate: "Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School The predecessor of Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School was a municipal ordinary middle school opened in 1957 in Chengdu. In 1997, in order to meet the needs of modern education development in Chengdu, under the leadership of the Chengdu Education Bureau and relying on the national model high school Chengdu No. 7 Middle School, the school was renamed Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School. For more than 20 years of running a school, the school has always adhered to the development path of "cultivating the school", adhered to the core value appeal of "excellence and greatness in the world", adhered to the school-running concept of "emphasizing morality, cultivating talents, facing the future, and optimal development", and insisting on information Deep integration of technology and education and teaching, and strive to build smart campuses and digital schools. At present, Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School has become a famous junior high school in the west and even the whole country. [paragraph break] In 2005, Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School started full-time distance teaching work. Through multimedia teaching demonstration classes, high-quality education was radiated to schools in remote and ethnic areas, allowing nearly 10,000 students to share high-quality educational resources with the school's students, ensuring the protection of Yucai students. While achieving optimal development, more and more remote students, remote teachers, remote schools, and remote regional education have been fulfilled. As of 2017, the high-quality educational resources of Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School have radiated to Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan, Jiangxi, Guangxi, Gansu, and Chongqing, sharing high-quality education with more than 260 schools, nearly 10,000 teachers and nearly 80,000 students throughout the year. Educational resources have greatly promoted the equity of education and promoted the balanced development of education."
2. Wang, Tinting 王婷婷 (2020-04-14). "锦江区小学大盘点：谁摇进七中育才的比例最高？谁是锦江"摇号天王"？" [Inventory of primary schools in Jinjiang District: Who has the highest proportion of entering No. 7 middle school? Who is Jinjiang's "Lottery King"?]. Chengdu Economic Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-05. Retrieved 2022-06-05 – via Tencent QQ.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School was established in 1997. It is an old-fashioned high-quality public school in Chengdu and a school with a certain influence in the country. Its predecessor was Chengdu No. 35 Middle School (a municipal ordinary middle school opened in 1957). In 1997, relying on the Chengdu No. 7 Middle School, it was restructured into the Chengdu No. 7 Middle School Yucai School with the nature of "public-run private assistance". ... In September 2009, under the direct guidance of the Chengdu Education Bureau and the Jinjiang District Education Bureau, the school was fully returned to the public. It is completely separated from Chengdu No. 7 Middle School (high school) and is a member of the No. 7 Middle School Education Group. It has a teaching connection with Chengdu No. 7 Middle School (high school) and has no administrative connection. ... No. 7 Middle School Yucai (Shuijingfang Campus) is one of the three secondary schools, and is one of the schools with the best reputation among public junior high schools in the No. 7 middle school department. It is especially outstanding and dazzling for its "online classes" and "cloud classes", which allow students to further their studies. The rate is almost 100%."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Number Seven Yucai Middle School (simplified Chinese: 成都七中育才学校; traditional Chinese: 成都七中育才學校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards for schools. Even assuming it's a large school, and pays its teachers (nothing can be taken for granted), it's one of thousands of ordinary middle schools in a country of hundreds of thousands of pupils. Cunard added two book sources, but they don't address my concerns. What does it mean to be 100%. Of what? I am willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Sources shared by Cunard establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard's sources show it meets WP:NSCHOOL, which only has extra requirements for schools that are for-profit (namely, meeting the strict WP:NCORP guidelines), but this is a public school so per the guideline only WP:GNG is required. Jumpytoo Talk 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – With two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage, the topic meets the bare minimum requirements of WP:NSCHOOL. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 11 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. Speedy deleted by Ponyo. CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Gaelle Iarijhon[edit]

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

Non-notable director/musician Mooonswimmer 16:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON for WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO notability - I have not been able to find more than the brief directory entry, the blog (?) and reprinted post in the article, which are not sufficient to support notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CU note I've deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 9 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 move to Draft:Areka Hooper. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Areka Hooper[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Areka Hooper.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. She is young – it's simply WP:TOOSOON right now – but I am happy to add some of her youth career coverage to the article (draft). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added her shortlist for Junior Sportswoman of the Year and a couple of other facts and references, mostly mentions, but as she's already playing at senior level, I think it's safe to say the feature coverage will come soon, and in the meantime, it's good to be ready with a nice draft article. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as a valid WP:ATD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 9 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. Page creator can request restoration to Draft space at WP:REFUND should better sources emerge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dionte Delpeche[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Dionte Delpeche.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable sportsperson. Fails WP:GNG and no WP:SIGCOV on Google either. IrishOsita (talk) 02:57, 10 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. Page creator can request restoration to Draft space at WP:REFUND should better sources emerge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denella Creese[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial, including those not currently on the page such as [5] and [6]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Denella Creese.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:52, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asanteni Charles[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial along with the ones not on the page currently: [7] and [searchlight.vc/sports/2022/03/25/international-football-returns-to-svg/]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:52, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aircrash Confidential[edit]

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

Per apparent lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Merko (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merko (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone's been reading my TV cleanup list huh? I found <10 hits on ProQuest, all of which were just TV guide listings. Searches on other databases found nothing constituting a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even though I won't PROD 200 articles per day a good chunk of that list looks worth deleting at first glance. Great work with the list Merko (talk) 00:30, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monumental Challenge[edit]

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

Per apparent lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as a result of WP:BEFORE search. Merko (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merko (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find was articles on History Channel describing unrelated content as a "monumental challenge". No other sources yielded anything close to an RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:30, 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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Room[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this [8] in The Record from New Jersey. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep was able to add a few sources, not great, but it's something. Artw (talk) 16:31, 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 redirect to Warsaw Uprising. ✗plicit 13:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the Warsaw Uprising[edit]

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

Citing no sources since 2015, possible POV fork. I'd suggest merging back into parent article. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The topic is notable (and the pl wiki article has some refs), but this is totally unreferenced, and I oppose merging unreferenced content on princile (WP:V). A redirect will be fine, waiting for someone to restore it with sources one day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be the wisest course.TH1980 (talk) 03:18, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palatine Lodge No. 97[edit]

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

On the surface, this looks like a well-sourced article of a very old organization. However, when reviewing the sources, there are no independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in-depth. All sources are affiliated with the organization, either directly to the lodge or Freemasonry. A review of sources are available at the talk page Talk:Palatine_Lodge_No._97#Excessive_Primary_Sources. As existence, even long existence is not notability, I believe this article fails WP:NORG and despite expressing concerns in draft and main space, no attempt to find independent, secondary sources has been attempted.A WP:BEFORE does not locate significant coverage. Slywriter (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Slywriter (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have made many points in defence of this article on the article and Slywriters talk pages, I feel I should briefly reiterate that sources are independent and are not affiliated with Palatine Lodge No 97.

The University of Sheffield, who hold and publish the Lane’s Masonic Records are in no way affiliated.

The Newspapers and articles held in the British Museum Archive, from various publications (and geographic locations) are not affiliated.

The Beamish Open Air Museum is a Social History Museum and has no affiliation with Palatine Lodge No 97. etc, etc

To further enhance this article, I’ve located and included two book references.

So, to conclude, the sources in this article have been written by independent third parties. They were written by persons who have no connection to the Palatine Lodge but were simply reporting on its verified activities. Thankyou. Stev201961 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:58, 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Peri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was deleted in September 2018. Sources in article and elsewhere online are either mentions in passing, interviews or PR paid-for puff pieces. No independent in-depth coverage found. Edwardx (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bodybuilding, Portugal, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP violations; owning a small business does not make one notable. We might also consider nominating the business. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:58, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Lashley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources currently on article and a search on Google are of a trivial nature. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check this source out if this is a concern! I have updated the article on this emergency basis. https://www.nationnews.com/2019/11/19/barbados-beat-cayman-to-gain-concacaf-promotion/ Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand the guidelines for association football players had been removed, even if the sources doesn't appear to meet the GNG, they shouldn't undermine the sources as he led the team to promotion to league B. Ivan Milenin (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV has been found. One sentence in a 4-sentence blurb obviously does not contribute toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which sentence for that statement? Ivan Milenin (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Armando Lashley netted in the 86th and Hope grabbed his second a minute from time." JoelleJay (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage, looks like they cover GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suspect that the above commenter has only glanced at the number of sources rather than actually reading them, as not a single one has any WP:SIGCOV of the subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the SIGCOV met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if we are basing this purely off the WP:SIGCOV requirement, then this clearly falls short. Doesn't even pass the lower bar of WP:SPORTCRIT point 5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the points made about WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, nothing on Google to support inclusion on Wikipedia, to the degree that is required to pass WP:GNG or lighter requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 15:37, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maliar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This article was originally listed on AFD as a contested prod on March 25 2009.

This article was listed on AFD approximately 13 years ago, but the nomination lacked rational beyond stating that a proposed deletion was contested.

This article is being re-listed today as the subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines, and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.

Previous discussions: 2009-03 (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems notable? Wondering if you discounted these sources for some reason Yamaguchi先生?

https://newpakhistorian.word press.com/tag/maliar-caste-pakistan/
https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/19454/PK CT55555 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Arain as a synonym thereof.^[1]^[2]

References

^ Alison Shaw (2000). Kinship and Continuity; Pakistani Families in Britain. Harwood Academic. p. 121. ISBN 9789058230751.
^ Sir Denzil Ibbetson Maclagan (1990). Horace Arthur Rose (ed.). Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province. Asian Educational Services. p. 13. ISBN 9788120605053.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – strong indications of existence of significant coverage, such as this book The Origin of the South Asian Malyar Tribe, by Shahid Khan-Malyarzoi, Jacqueline Harvey and hundreds of search results with trivial mention to this tribe. Radioactive (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input would be appreciated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I commented and avoided !voting in case I missed something, but the nominator hasn't answered my question. With no objections to the sources I suggested, I'll be bolder and say keep. CT55555 (talk) 02:31, 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) 14:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above points. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Arain is the best option, although I'm certainly glad to reconsider if there's something I've missed. There's nothing here that stands out as a reliable source: the Joshua Project was deemed unreliable at RSN, the WordPress site appears to be a blog (WP:SPS), and the South Asian Malyar Tribe book doesn't seem to have been published by any reputable outlet. I think this is a case where it's important to be strict about reliability: this is a contentious topic area that falls under general sanctions, and there have been issues with unreliable sources (and related problems like WP:FRINGE) in the past. The sources mentioned by SailingInABathTub (and others in GScholar), while not sigcov, are reliable, and they do indicate that this group is connected to the Arain, so a redirect strikes me as a reasonable alternative to deletion as well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 11 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. Star Mississippi 19:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery County Board of Commissioners[edit]

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

Non-notable. All sources are primary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page can be improved through non-primary source such as [9],[10], [11] and [12]. The Commission is in charge of PA's third largest County and has had a number of notable members too including Josh Shapiro and Bruce Castor. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of material about the Commission. Also primary sources may be used, but can not be used for determining notability. The only question here is whether the Commission is a valid spinoff from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania or whether the information should be on the primary page. --Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is insufficient content to support standalone article and a reader would not gain anything clicking through from Primary article.Slywriter (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, if necessary, merge. It's the executive of a large county. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. A legislative body of substantial significance. BD2412 T 06:29, 13 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hernandez (artist)[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but they're just passing mentions in articles about graffiti artists. The other sources are social media, blogs, and superficial mentions here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources from PlayStation, GameSpot, Kidrobot, Sol Republic and KTVU are articles all about Hernandez, not passing mentions. I agree that "The Nutshack" should be deleted, but Hernandez appears to have had significant coverage in the listed sources, as well as design roles on notable video games (e.g. ModNation Racers, Gears of War 4). FlameRabbit (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The PlayStation and GameSpot sources are promotional in nature. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While most references aren't terribly in-depth, all the mentions and articles appear to make him notable enough according to WP:ARTIST. Merko (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Bušek[edit]

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

Bušek was a non-medaling Olympian. The sources about sports such as Olympedia, all only have tables on him, not biographical text. I did find [13] which is a one sentence mention that one of his former team mates regularly wrote letters to Bušek. That is not enough to justify an article. There are multiple other people with this name who show up in sources, such as an inventor, so there is no reason to make this name a redirect. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Water polo at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Czechoslovakia per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why when there is an inventor with the same name who is as likely to be a search term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 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) 14:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Per WP:R#Delete #1 a redirect is not suitable, as there are two valid targets, the 1928 and the 1936 Olympics, and we cannot predict which someone searching for this name is trying to find - the search function, which provides both, is the best way to handle this. BilledMammal (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without redirect, per BilledMammal and JPL. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 11 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 request to clarify earlier positions was not answered, making consensus of what to do unclear. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polarity therapy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable pseudoscience, one of an infinite variety of such, without the benefit of reliable secondary sources. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ari T. Benchaim. Hope you are keeping well. Thanks for your time for reviewing this article. I also noticed your remarks and nomination for this article. The practice has been followed globally for various ailments. It also has sufficient secondary sources and also scientific backing for patients with these ailments. Request you to kindly reconsider and remove the tag. Thanking you. Gardenkur (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should not be hard at all to add them to the article.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. You can't really remove an AfD tag. Once it is submitted to AfD, it can only be closed. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many items found in GScholar describing how they've designed treatment therapies with the protocol. I mean it's not really useful, in my opinion, but regardless of my thoughts, it's been reviewed and described. Notable for our standards. In particular here [ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360859206000726] and [14] and here in a book [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this counts - are practitioners of a therapy writing about their work with it independent? I am concerned about the WP:FRINGE aspect here. If describing a protocol is a secondary reliable source that establishes notability, then pretty much every drug is automatically notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd distinguish between notable evidence that the therapy exists (which does establish inclusion into Wikipedia) from evidence that the therapy works (which needs to meet the more restrictive criteria of WP:MEDRS). The balance between the two is how we can be inclusive of notable fringe ideas without endorsing them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I new-page-patrolled this. I didn't nominate it for deletion because it had enough secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. I agree it's pseudoscience and I tagged it as such, but that's not a criterion for deletion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article's sources are not independent reviews of the practice and lack WP:SIGCOV which fails WP:GNG. --mikeu ^talk 00:31, 30 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) 14:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the sources in the article, the only one that's potentially reliable for the purpose of this article is the one in Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies (incorrectly presented as "sciencedirect.com" – that's the publisher's platform for all its journals, not the source.) And I'm not 100% sure about that one, either. --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete accord Bonadea. Actually, Science Direct and Times of India are generally reliable. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: - if I understand your comment, you are saying that the Times of India article counts as one of several potentially reliable sources beyond the one identified as such by Bonedea: by the numbers this seems to be making a case against the rationale that bonadea provided for delete, suggesting the GNG threshold is met. Could you clarify your !vote? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BEFORE-depth research shows a fair number of scholarly articles on the subject beyond those currently in the article (e.g., [16] and [17]) and the existence of a credible-seeming professional association for practitioners of polarity therapy [18]. Our policies do not require that we delete articles on pseudoscience, so deciding whether the therapy is pseudoscience is not the main task here, rather we should be aiming to see whether (i) we are in a position to provide encyclopediac coverage that is both verifiable and neutral, (ii) the content in the article as it stands has no value (ie. WP:TNT applies), or (iii) if an ATD outcome is appropriate. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:00, 9 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 KCET. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life & Times (TV series)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and I couldn't find anything. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:04, 27 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?)} 15:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to KCET. Got at least continued LA Times coverage 1992, 1997, 1999 & 2007. Nearly 500 results. A lot of Peabody awards and LA Emmys mentioned, needs sources. 4 Emmy wins in '08. It was definitely a notable program in LA, but I feel like it can be adequately covered in KCET, and keep the DAB entry. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:04, 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) 14:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to KCET as per the reliable sources coverage identified above, but not enough coverage for a standalone article imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as WikiVirusC said. starship .paint (exalt) 07:36, 10 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. Nicely improved. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Jingyi[edit]

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

Stub article with practically no info or sources. Given that it says "there is no existing biography about this person" it's unlikely to ever see meaningful extension. Nothing links here either except for things like "List of people who died in 929". Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be a footnote somewhere, not notable for our purposes if no other records exist. We can re-create if some archeological evidence surfaces to support his existence. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notified the article creator, Nlu (talk · contribs), about this nomination for deletion as Nlu had not been notified. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the article shumishi - a shumishi, pretty much by definition, is notable even if little else is known about him. --Nlu (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this because, even if everything is true, holding that office does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Even the title's article is poorly cited and might need to be deleted. Each of the articles is so poorly sourced as to lack significant coverage, thus failing general notability. An office holder might have been important, but without good sources, we can't be an encyclopedia. In 2007, the creator's argument might have been acceptable, but in 2022, it's untenable. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. shumishi was pretty much a national title, which makes the subject pass WP:NPOL (first point). Sun8908 _Talk 18:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He was one of the highest court and military officials of the court of King Minggong. During the monarchy days, chiefs of staff (Shumishi) was a minister of the royal court. Moreover he had served several high-ranking positions such as Prefect of Ye, deputy military governor of Tianxiong, Privy envoy, the right guard general and chief of the army. Clearly passes WP:NPOL. Sources in historical books Tang Studies Volume 19, Chronology of the Five Dynasties and Early Song Dynasty: Five Dynasties and Early Song Dynasty, History of the New Five Dynasties. Taung Tan (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – seems to meet WP:NPOL as a national-level officeholder of the Later Tang. Thanks to User:Yinweiaiqing for expanding the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the good work by Yinweiaiqing (talk · contribs) in expanding the article and per Taung Tan (talk · contribs)'s sources that verify that the subject meets WP:NPOL. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 12 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. This is a tough one, as evidenced by this discussion remaining open since May 20th. The standards in WP:GNG are difficult to meet. Several editors have marshalled a number of sources in support of keeping the article, including convincing evidence via WorldCat that the publication is listed in important libraries (though this is typically not enough to keep an article). However, most of the sources offered by those arguing in favor of keeping fall short of "significant coverage" because they mention the subject in passing only. There are a few sources that primarily address the subject, but these appear to be less influential. At the same time, some of these passing mentions seem to indicate that the subject comes close to satisfying WP:NBOOK's third criterion. Even this argument is tenuous given the passing nature of these mentions. Ultimately, my read is that consensus has not been reached, but I suspect that a future discussion may result in the article being deleted unless additional third-party significant coverage emerges. Malinaccier (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The European Conservative[edit]

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

promotional article about a magazine that afaict isn't notable, despite being created by notable founders. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the journal is listed in important libraries from Oxford and Cambridge university to New York public library as you can see in the world book catalogue https://www.worldcat.org/title/european-conservative/oclc/1057445721?referer=br&ht=edition --Pepe1979 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The European Conservative is relevant as it is widely read on the European political right and beyond and serves as a focal point for the connection of conservative academics. Do not delete in any case --Oberlandler080 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal (and the article) is relevant and does satisfy the WP relevance criteria. There are scholarly research papers that attribute importance to the TEC because of their role in the transfer of ideas between west European and east European conservatives or right-wingers.--90.204.114.23 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does meet WP:BKTS, but I can't find anything that comes even close to being useful for WP:BOOKCRIT. Some confusion with mentions of ECR, so I'm reserving judgement for now until I can go through things a bit deeper. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On a more detailed review of the sources, I am unable to find any evidence to suggest there would be significant coverage of the publication itself, beyond the existing namechecks. The originating organisation may be more notable and an appropriate place to have some coverage, giving due weight, however, the title seems too generic to be a good redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we don't have to like it, but it is notable: Salon, with 3rd party coverage [19], [20], and some members of its editorial board appear to be controversial, [21]. I didn't have time to investigate content but notable authors come up in the search such as Dooley, [22], and Montanari. It is also verifiably in distribution: (online, of course) and [23], [24], [25], and [26]. Atsme 💬 📧 14:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atsme: Have you found any sources that aren't passing mentions or author bios? Sources have to be both in-depth and independent to prove notability, and it seems like all of the links you found are neither. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples - WP:NEXIST clearly states (my bold underline) Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Below, editors have consistently found and named RS that have written about the magazine, its editorial staff & contributors, and its influence in certain parts of Europe. We also answered the challenge to provide sources that speak about the magazine itself; therefore, proof that sources exist has been demonstrated. Atsme 💬 📧 12:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Salon article mentions the journal exactly once, and that's while quoting someone. The rawstory.com link has the exact same quote. The rest of the links seem to mostly be mentions of the journal in author bios on other websites. These don't prove notability for either the authors or the journal. People associated with the journal would obviously mention any blogs or journals they're published in as part of their work experience, but it's not significant or third party coverage. The fact that subscriptions are available for purchase online is proof that it exists, not that it's notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page would need references to articles that are at least partly about the journal, or that discuss it (even if its just one or two paragraphs). Author bios and quotes by people who work for the journal don't count. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page would need references to articles that are at least partly about the journal, or that discuss it (even if its just one or two paragraphs). Author bios and quotes by people who work for the journal don't count. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source, and yet another citing. GNG is satisfied per the following definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I've provided an adequate number to satisfy the guideline - keeping in mind GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Evidence of notability has also been satisfied in that other notable media and scholars refer to it, or cite the magazine, not to mention the fact that members of the magazine's editorial board are academics. The sources are there, and I don't doubt that more can be found in foreign languages as it is a European magazine. Atsme 💬 📧 00:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC) ^{Added underlined material 11:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
@Atsme: GNG is not a rule, but pages have to meet at least one agreed upon criteria for notability. The New Statesman article mentions the journal one time in passing, that's not in-depth coverage. Simply having members of the board be academics (not necessarily notable themselves), doesn't mean the journal inherits notability. Just saying that the sources are there doesn't count, they have to actually be found. Part of this is because an article's content should cite reliable sources, and not having these makes that impossible. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one from La Tribuna del País Vasco certainly seems to be significant coverage, I'll bow out on evaluating the source's reliability and ignore that it reads like a press release. I agree completely that significant coverage does not require it to be the main topic, I'd say I'm willing to accept even less than "one or two paragraphs" depending on the circumstances, but to have a clear line for this case, let's say two sentences, in the same general vicinity of each other. How about that? I will strike my delete if anyone provides, for the second source, two sentences actually about the magazine, preferably in a publication that is easier to verify as independent and reliable.

I also resent the implication that my judgement of the article is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I see only one other person that could have applied to. But I hope having a clear criterion for which I will rescind my opinion will assuage any skepticism that it is based arbitrarily on my feelings. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 – I certainly hope I wasn't one of those people, and if so, then I apologize. I'm pressed for time right now, but I did find an Austin Institute podcast. It's probably time for WP to get up to speed with more modern types of sources we can cite now that most everything is online. This article describes various outlets, and begins with...How can political establishments hope to survive..., this one has a picture caption, this shows one of their staff was a moderator, The New Yorker mentions the magazine: He applied to the academy in 2018, sending Harnwell a few clips blasting political correctness from the magazine he edits, The European Conservative. I think notability is established. I've gotta run! Atsme 💬 📧 21:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the podcast, even though I'm not so optimistic about the amount of independent, secondary content considering the usual caveats we apply to interviews, but the other sources you've linked don't come anywhere even close to the rather low bar of "two sentences about the subject". What are we to write here? "Fantini is or was editor-in-chief"? "He's the second guy from the left in this picture here"? "Some other Fantini has also done things at such and such law school"? "There are clips blasting political correctness in this magazine that Fantini edits"?

We can't piece together an encyclopedia article from coverage of perhaps half a sentence each (and that's a generous overstatement for the ones other than the New Yorker). A Wikipedia article is more than just a collection of miscellaneous facts! That's the type of thing we cut from other articles when people try to take them on into a section at the bottom, and exactly why we even have SIGCOV. Even if we ignore the "independent" and "reliable" parts (which to be fair, the New Yorker would have no issue meeting) those sources are so far from useful, "significant" coverage I'm not sure why they were posted.

Perhaps the keep !voters would prefer to discuss things in relation to WP:BOOKCRIT#3 instead of #1 and temporarily bypass the SIGCOV/GNG issue for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On review (I skimmed it the first time), it is more clear that the second source posted starting "How can political establishments hope to survive" is entirely about the subject, but it is also written by (people affiliated with) the subject. The last paragraph of "we are the people that write this magazine and by the way it is very great" (paraphrased obviously) is about as unambiguous as it gets, though I do wish it got attributed to an actual specific real person (or persons as it were). At least it is clearer than the Tribuna article. In any case, consider my !vote stricken until I can actually review the other source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure that User:Oberlandler080 and the IP are voting with the best of intentions, but it doesn't seem like either of them understand Wikipedia guidelines. Given that their only edits so far have been to vote in this AfD, their votes may not be well informed. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several academic research papers or books respectively that discuss the influence of the journal. They point out that it is noteworthy in the ideas transfer between right-wingers in east Europe and west Europe. You find the papers' links in the article. BuySomeApples seems to have ignored this.--Pepe1979 (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article from Hungary, in "Mandiner", a magazine close to the Orbán government. It looks like The European Conservative is especially promoted in right-wing circles in Central East Europe. https://mandiner.hu/cikk/20210720_jon_a_megujult_the_european_conservative_magazin.--Pepe1979 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Pepe1979: FYI, as the creator of the article, it's usually recommended that you comment rather than vote. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pepe1979: Your latest link is 404 for me, so I can't comment. If you have an archive or a copy of it, that would be appreciated. I'm not so sure that it was a matter of those papers being ignored, rather than it being assumed understood that the explicitly stated requirements of "one or two paragraphs" would exclude from consideration papers which have written about the subject considerably less than a paragraph. I will restate my considerably looser requirements more bluntly if it helps. If your source has less than two sentences, don't even bother. If your source is not verifiably independent of the subject, it would be appreciated if you indicate why you think it is. On reliability: I'll mostly trust whatever your judgement is on how reliable your source is, as long as you include something indicating you've thought about it and why you've arrived at that conclusion, I or someone else can verify the reliability of a source if we have the time.

There is a reason we ask for WP:THREE best sources. We only need three. If they're good enough, sometimes maybe two is enough, but we will never need more than three assuming they do the bare minimum of "actually meeting the criteria". And if your third best source won't meet it, it is highly unlikely your 4th best or 5th best will meet it either. If they don't meet the criteria, then it is a waste of time, both yours and ours. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Alpha3031: Sorry for the broken link. I 'll try again:

Jön a megújult The European Conservative magazin! | Mandiner Pepe1979 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appears that the editor of TEC, Fantini, is especially active in Hungary. He was also quoted by Balkan Insight in an article on a Fidesz-sponsored conference for right-wing Christian journalists: ‘Pray Before You Tweet’: Hungary Promotes ‘Christian Communication’ | Balkan Insight Pepe1979 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on your first source. Significant coverage: great. Again though, the content positively smacks of a press release. If you have any reason based on which you'd assert that it isn't one, then sure, we can accept it provisionally. With quotes, unfortunately they're not secondary/independent so they are not considered "significant coverage in independant reliable sources". The coverage (or a significant part of it at least) also has to be about the magazine, not just any one of the contributors. If you have two sources of similar depth to the first one that doesn't read like a presser I'd wager there's a good chance BuySomeApples and Praxidicae will both be convinced as well and then we can close this and all go home. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alpha3031. I did some research and found several talks about the magazine: Here is another interview in “Hirado”, the main news program of MTVA, the Hungarian public broadcaster, with TEC editor-in-chief Fantini about his magazine: https://hirado.hu/cikk/2021/10/17/fantini-tamadjak-a-csaladot-az-egyhazat-es-a-hagyomanyt; I also found this interview in a right-wing Spanish journal: https://revistacentinela.es/alvino-mario-fantini-el-conservadurismo-tiene-que-ser-disruptivo/; here is a interview in an Albanian journal with Fantini about the European Conservative: https://www.standard.al/2022/05/01/kryeredaktori-i-the-european-conservative-keni-nevoje-per-lidere-te-guximshem-media-te-patrembur-dhe-qytetare-patriote/; and then this podcast talk with a Texan think tank (albeit admittedly a small and highly partisan conservative) in English: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conservatism-in-the-eu-and-the-u-s/id1537412555?i=1000557934697

These are all independent sources. It now comes down to the question if you consider them reliable sources. I would say they are all politically biased and partisan but nevertheless they are independent and show that there is sufficient news coverage to justify a WP article in my opinion. Pepe1979 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Pepe. I have no doubt that the sources provided easily satisfy GNG, particularly WP:NRV, and N but the good work you've done cinched it. Thank you for going that extra mile. Atsme 💬 📧 22:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe1979, I appreciate that you've certainly gone to considerable effort to find these sources, but articles primarily composed of what (persons close to) the subject said are not generally more independent than articles that (persons close to) the subject wrote. The podcast was already posted, and I did commit to reviewing it. I'm about 7 minutes in right now, and thus far it is not much better in terms of independent content. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 - in light of two very important aspects of GNG: WP:NRV and WP:NEXIST, which appears you may not have considered, your argument is not supported by our core content policies. Regardless, here are a few more sources: Origo, The American Conservative quotes a big block from TEC, Mandiner group, and Syri. Media doesn't necessarily cover their competition, so we don't expect to see the conglomerate mirroring within the echo chamber we call today's media. It's not unusual for competitors to publish rave reviews about their competition. We have provided sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG and N. The simple fact that sources are quoting TEC weighs heavily in the direction of N. Editors who oppose this Afd have provided more than adequate sourcing. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider NEXIST and NRV to be part of the broader N rather than the quick reference criteria of GNG, but my nitpicks aside, and forgive me if I seem harsher towards you than Pepe: Yes, notability can be established without sourcing being found that come close to meeting GNG, at the same time posting all those useless-for-GNG sources without a cogent argument as to why all those sources found are terrible GNG-wise and how the elusive unfound sources are different indicates nothing but piss poor precision. A hundred, a thousand articles not meeting the minimum criteria doesn't indicate that there is one that will. Sure, those press releases and interviews might be easier to find and all, and I will admit that the search term in this case means that the base precision (that of our search results) suffer, but you are an intelligent human with familiarity with Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sources Can Exist yes, but if you want to argue as such, please do so instead of pretending the sources you have "satisfy GNG". They don't, not even close, no matter how many times you assert it. Again if you would like a path to notability that isn't GNG, you can have it: you're more than welcome to argue this based on WP:BK#3 or some other SNG. Hell, you can even make your own SNG-like arguments if you really wanted to, though that may be seen as less based in PAG. What you can't do is pretend General Notability is just "post a few sources, 20 is more than 3 so GNG is met. Hmm yes, definitely significant coverage here: 'it does not need to be the main topic' and even the shortest half sentence I have definitely meets that". If it doesn't meet the standards for Counting Towards Being Notable In General then posting it as such instead of making the argument about how it is one of the Extra Cases Where Things Are Usually Notable For This Specific Subject, or even just This Specific Reason Sources Might Exist For This Article Topic Only Even If It Might Not For Other Topics simply wastes the time of everyone who is trying to find the best three sources and believe the assertion that those sources are ones that you've found to contribute to such a thing. You have posted that Notability Requires Verifiability: Yes, that is definitely true, and to verify things require you to WP:PROVEIT.

It doesn't matter that reliable sources (or mainstream media, or whatever people want to call it) is an echo chamber that covers the same set of things. "Systemic bias exists and we want to avoid it", sure, but as our policies currently stand if independent reliable sources cover nothing at all we are obligated to have no articles at all, and if the cover twice as many things they ought to in A instead of B, there is precious little we can do to ensure we cover B instead. So yes, argue how important it is! If you can't find sources meeting GNG, I would honestly be very happy if you could find a few independent reliable sources that say: "The European Conservative is very important for movement XYZ" and we can move the discussion along those lines instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Alpha3031: The paper by Valentin Behr (University of Strasbourg) (From Anticommunism to Antiliberalism. Polish Conservative intellectuals' involvement in the transnational circulation of ideas (archives-ouvertes.fr)) provides exactly what you ask for: It shows that the CER and TEC are important as plattfroms for the circulation of ideas - in this case hardline conservative, illiberale ideas by Polish anticommunist intellectuals. The book New Conservatives in Russia and East Central Europe by Katharina Bluhm and Mihail Varga also elaborates on this and mentions CER and TEC as forums for the intellectual exchange. What else do you want? I think this is getting a bit pedantic and we should all move on. Perhaps some other participants might like to join the discussion and give their opinion?--Pepe1979 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree about letting other participants take over. My second round of source review has left me with no better sources than before, and I am more firmly convinced that there will not be any sourcing that meet either of the two target criteria in establishing notability of the subject independent of (i.e. not inherited from) the publishing organisation. As such, I am reinstating my !vote and (considering quality) do not think it likely I will be actively looking for sources a third time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and News media. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though, come to think of it, this probably could be included in a couple of "magazine"-relevant delsort lists, didn't really pay attention to it before. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources presented both in the article and in this discussion all have issues towards proving notability. Some of the sources in the article are directly connected to the publication and lack independence. Others, such as the Salon article, only mention the work in passing. None of the independent publications cited in the article or provided as evidence in the discussion above address the topic "in detail" as required by policy at WP:GNG. The interview articles do address the topic in detail, but as interviews they lack independence. As such, fails the significant independent coverage requirement of our notability standards.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 15 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Lindsay[edit]

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

Since NFOOTY is deprecated, GNG must be met for footballers. Although I assume the book is reliable, a single source is insufficient to keep the article. I did not locate any additional coverage (or even suggestions of coverage) on a search. Can't redirect to List of Burnley F.C. players as that only covers players with 100+ appearances. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG requires multiple sources, we only in fact have one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sur les murs de la ville[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist; they have to have some form of notability claim, and WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage to support it -- but the only notability claim here is that the film exists, and the only reference is a deadlinked catalogue profile on the self-published website of a film festival where it screened once, which is not support for notability as it's neither analytical nor fully independent of the film. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Africa. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only link is the film festival, nothing else found. One brief mention in a book about animation [27] Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinie Fitri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD in 2013 resulted in a 'keep' although there were still three editors in favour of deletion even at that time. Since then, WP:NFOOTBALL has been removed and it seems that NFOOTBALL and the fact that Fitri was relatively young back in 2013, were the main factors which resulted in the article being kept.

It's worth noting that nine years on, Fitri still hasn't made any further appearances and still looks to fail WP:GNG quite badly. There are no hits in Google News or ProQuest and a Singaporean source search returns only stats pages, social media and Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches on google shows that he is/was a team captain of a minor football club, Bishan Barx. The club participates in National Football League, which is ranked lower than Singapore Premier League. However, all these are from primary sources with no note of notability. I am unable to find further sources beyond his single appearance (which was only covered or easily searchable in those database sources). – robertsky (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I was unable to find significant coverage of him on Newslink. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:51, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy (blockchain software company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Note common outcomes advises: "Generally, companies that are included in major stock indices such as S&P 500 Index or FTSE 100 Index will have sufficient in-depth independent coverage for notability." And this ain't that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as failing WP:NOTINHERITED, since this provides serves for other companies, but isn't notable itself. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I submitted the page to Articles for Creation with a disclosed COI. It was reviewed/approved by @The Most Comfortable Chair:, presumably based on the articles I brought to their attention in Forbes[28][29] and WIRED[30] and Bloomberg [31]. I believe these constitute 2+ in-depth stories in national media outlets focused on Alchemy, per WP:CORP. Alchemy is not public and working with big companies does not bestow the business with notability. However, I would think being the biggest company in our field would be relevant, which is why the draft mentioned that. Thanks for letting me participate in the discussion on your site. Best regards. Camcrowe (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes fails WP:ORGIND as its an interview style article which involves the company, the 2nd Forbes ref fails WP:CORPDEPTH as its routine coverage, the Wired reference, fails WP:ORGIND as its another interview style article which involves the company. The Bloomberg reference fails WP:NCORP as well. All the references that are there are typical of a startup, more so as its a generic cryto SAAS company. There is no secondary sources that are not PR, or not explaining what it does. It fails WP:ORGCRIT. Its native advertising on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 22:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At best (given scope_creep's comments), this is WP:TOOSOON, but it really does feel more like just cryptocruft. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I agree with the analysis of sources above and 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⁺⁺ 14:11, 10 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. While this topic is potentially of interest and notable, the article as it is does not establish notability. There is no prejudice against recreating this list with proper sources in the future if there is interest. Malinaccier (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Sweden[edit]

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

Yet another boilerplate "list of people on the postage stamps of X". Woefully incomplete, completely unsourced. No maintenance being put in since 2010 as usual. There is an overwhelming consensus by now that postage stamps lists aren't notable. Deprodded without comment. Obligatory ping of @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Sweden. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not adequate to justify keeping the list. It also appears to be 61 years out of date. Lists that we cannot even start as up to date are worse than no lists at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 27 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 If we do keep this article, we need reliable sources. We also need to sort it by year. That is the only way to approach it in a way that has historical value. It also would help emphasize what is more trivial or less trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least keepworthy. But this particular list is so much of a stub that it might be more useful to start all over again when someone has an interest in working with it. Bw Orland (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Every one of these lists are total trivia collections and every one should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Orland: These articles have had nearly two decades to be worked on. At what point is enough enough? I think we passed it ages ago. Further, under what circumstances do you find the topic noteworthy? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons the other stamp articles were kept. Of general notability and significance and can and should be expanded. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with your vote but I suggest a clarification since not all of the others were kept. Star Mississippi 13:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would argue that lists should be kept if they have citations or references that indicate that such and such stamp depicting such and such person really was issued by that country in a particular year. That makes them of general notability. The size of a country does not matter for notability. The U.S. and Liechtenstein are equally notable. If there are no references at all, go ahead and delete it. That’s why I voted to keep the ones I did and didn’t vote keep on a few of the others I saw. I’m sure I missed some since someone is apparently determined to nominate every single list in the category. I think they’re notable and should be improved rather than deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of whether or not the people listed here are notable, or that there is confirmation that they were, in fact, depicted on a postage stamp in Sweden, the fact remains that the list fails WP:LISTN unless there are actual reliable, secondary sources that discuss this grouping as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT but with the acknowledgement that there isn't a strong policy based rationale for deletion. It's highly likely that reliable Swedish language sources with significant coverage exist which could be used to develop a list that would meet WP:SIGCOV/ WP:NLIST. Stamps are a well documented topic by governments and collectors in published literature, and sourcing a list like this would be feasible. Further, I doubt the nominator or the other delete voters in this discussion followed WP:BEFORE and genuinely tried to source and improve this list. That said, until someone actually wants to do the work of sourcing this list and organizing it into a format that is encyclopedic and follows NLIST, I don't see the benefit of keeping a poorly developed list in main space.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 15 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danial (footballer)[edit]

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

This footballer only has one name, which makes an accurate WP:BEFORE tricky. I've scoured the archives of various Indonesian news sites and found a couple of mentions from 2014 that appear to relate to Danial: Okezone and Republika. These are both trivial mentions of the subject and so WP:GNG is not demonstrated. Since I could not find anything even close to the detail required for GNG, I'm sending this to AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:51, 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. The argument to present sources, as requested by those advocating deletion, was not answered. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family Album, U.S.A.[edit]

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

This teaching course does not seem notable at all. Add to the fact that the article itself contradicts itself - it either ran for 26 episodes or 76 episodes over 9 seasons, makes me question the validity of everything else wrirtten there. Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this article which confirms much of what is said in the page (besides the episode count discrepancy which seems to be a typo) [32] DonaldD23 talk to me 16:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Even after the deprod, very little sourcing has been found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this training TV series has been so valuable and somehow unique in its method of teaching English to help students since 1991. This artwork of Alvin Cooperman has been very helpful for those who have been intended to learn English in a practical way and still it is useful and without doubt it will be very useful for years in future. This TV series is currently used in many English language teaching schools around the world to teach students. The right number of episodes is 26 and I made a mistake to write 76 unconsciously. I also added new references.Caravaneternity (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is important, where are the sources that talk about that? There are currently 6 references and 2 external links in the article with one of the external links being the same as the reference and that same one itself copying the Wikipedia article. So that leaves us with 5 references and 1 external link. One is for Maxwell Macmillan International and not about the TV series at all; one is a copy of the script; these two link to a video; these two have basic production details. None of these sources actually talk about what makes this important. Also, none of these sources are themselves from actual places you'd cite television series from. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of sources for this article and we can use them over time. Trying to delete articles instead of help them to be complete dose not make sense. Both Maxwell Macmillan (as the publither) and Alvin Cooperman (as the producer) are main part of this TV series. The videos also proves the importance of our article subject. I added new sources once again. Caravaneternity (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no sources, unless you count a Twinkl worksheet. And if that's notability, we're in deep, deep doodoo around here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep sweet learning series with wellknown directore and actors and acctreses .. Thanks Farhadzare2 (talk) 10:56, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fandi Achmad[edit]

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

Stats stub on non-notable semi-pro footballer. Please do not confuse him with legendary Singaporean footballer and manager Fandi Ahmad or any of his three children Irfan Fandi Ahmad, Ikhsan Fandi Ahmad and Ilhan Fandi Ahmad, all of whom are notable and all will come up in a WP:BEFORE search.

Ultimately, Fandi Achmad seems to fail WP:GNG, which is not surprising since his career consists of 46 mins of football and then disappearing. Everything I can find in searches, including an Indonesian search, is just coverage on namesakes or a passing mention in a match summary regarding an Indonesian third tier football match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. And yes, that Fandi bin Ahmad thing is confusing! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:51, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan national under-20 football team results (2020–present)[edit]

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

I wanted to wait on the outcome of the equivalent women's AfD before nominating this one and since that closed as 'delete', I believe this also should be removed per WP:NOTSTATS. Whilst there haven't been many AfDs of this nature to date yet, it's worth also noting that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India national under-20 football team results and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzbekistan national under-20 football team results both closed as 'delete' too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus at other recent AFDs. Giant Snowman 11:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because wiki is not a stats db.Fulmard (talk) 19:12, 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. The consensus of the discussion is that Sørensen does not meet NPROF. I don't see enough of a consensus to spring for a merge or redirect. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ib Holm Sørensen[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Not notable for an academic, was only a Information Systems Developer according to his personal website. Reference 2 made no references to where he was originally from and the date he started his academic career. Reference 3 is dead, and getting a PhD is not notable enough. Reference 5 has no mentions of his name, furthermore, B-Core Limited on Google doesn't show anything related. Fails WP:GNG Hadal1337 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Denmark, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A reluctant vote, his body of contributions at ResearchGate is a pointer to a role of some significance in the world of software and computer science. However, we have WP:GNG and he sadly doesn't pass muster. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have made a start at addressing the issues, with references. More work is needed, which I will do when I can. WP:PROF applies to some degree here, but this person spanned academia and industry, and as such is one of those exceptional cases. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I think there is enough there now with his contribution to a Queen's Award for Technological Achievement with IBM, leadership of the BP Research group, and foundation of the B-Core (UK) company, not to mention his leading contribution to B-Method tool support. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see how this is an exceptional case. He seems to have contributed to some extent on formal methods, but at the end of the day, his most cited paper on Scholar is cited 215 times, and other articles do not exceed 35 citations. Not sure how "selected publications" will benefit WP:GNG.
  - Note: For information, his most cited co-authored book Specification Case Studies has 855 citations and his most cited co-authored journal article Laws of programming has 544 citations on Google Scholar. You have to be a bit careful when using Google Scholar for searching. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the Queen's Award for Technological Achievement with IBM, except from the book (which I cannot find any copies online), there is no other sources backing this.
  
  - No sources (primary or secondary) regarding the "leadership of the BP Research group".
  
  - Please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong, but I am unable to find any secondary source online regarding B-Core (UK) Limited. The primary source you used can be created by anyone, and that there is no further information on his LinkedIn page that shows he is the Ib Holm Sørensen in this article. Hadal1337 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added better independent references for all these aspects. Please let me know if there are any remaining issues. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or possibly redirect to B-Method. As far as WP:NPROF goes, I'm seeing one moderately highly cited paper, developing the B-Method theory. I don't think it's nearly enough for NPROF C1. There are no signs of the other NPROF criteria, nor of other notability. Redirect to B-Method#Software would be possible, if so, it would be good to source the statement in that article that Sørensen developed the B-Toolkit. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: For information and correction, as also noted above, his most cited book Specification Case Studies has 855 citations and his most cited journal article Laws of programming has 544 citations on Google Scholar. There are also additional independent references now added too, including for the B-Toolkit (see above). —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I had missed Laws of Programming. This moderately highly cited and also highly coauthored (8 coauthors not including the subject) contributes slightly, but I don't think it brings the subject to a pass of WP:NPROF C1. The sourcing that I see for his connection with the redirect target appears to be primary at best, and pretty weak. (The B-Toolkit page link in the article, for example, doesn't even mention Sørensen!) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have improved the references linking Ib Sørensen with B-Core and the development of B-Toolkit. The highly cited Specification Case Studies is also seminal for the use of the Z notation. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: note from WP:PROF#General notes:

The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?

Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications.

I believe this applies in this case, especially since this person straddled academia and industry, creating links between the two, something not done by many academics. This person was definitely an above-average academic in terms of his impact. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for information: I do not believe that WP:BEFORE was followed in this case. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE was followed. WP:DEL-REASON is 8; fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Hadal1337 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, I cannot see how WP:BEFORE C.3 was covered (e.g., by adding a ((notability)) tag or discussing in the talk page first). —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  One usually complains about WP:BEFORE when an AfD discussion ends in a speedy keep. This is nowhere near that. If the subject has had so much impact, why is that not reflected in reliable sources or in citations? Meanwhile, you might wish to read WP:BLUDGEON, and consider whether any of the advice therein might apply. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPROF. The sourcing is too thin to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The additions to the page (mentioned above) and the explanation of the background of this article's target has strengthened the case considerably. This person indeed worked both in academe and industry, and actually seemed to prefer the latter. His influence was very great, not only in the projects he initiated and/or managed, but in the people he influenced and taught. He did not, however, have much interest in the conventional academic activities of submitting/being reviewed/revising papers or books, or applying for promotion. (At that time, in Oxford, the Programming Research Group comprised just one professor (Hoare): everyone else was simply a Lecturer.) Thus he does fall perhaps outside the guidelines that Wikipedia applies to prevent its being abused by bogus articles. But this person is by no means bogus; his influence was large, and pervasive (especially in the UK), and applied mainly by personal contact and by negotiating and managing contracts with industry. It is unfortunate of course that many of the publications do not mention the full membership of the group(s) he led, or its leader; but many of those groups' members are (still) easy to find (and I was one). The only question would be whether they would want to participate in this discussion.nunibad (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)— nunibad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nunibad, this is not a policy based rationale. We have guidelines for determining what content gets included on wikipedia which you can read at Wikipedia:Notability (or the subject specific guidelines of WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO). The issue here is one of lack of sources to meet the guideline at WP:SIGCOV. While your personal assessment of Sørensen may be accurate, for wikipedia's purposes we require independent secondary and tertiary sources that address the subject "directly and in-detail" to verify the notability of subjects. In this case, we simply do mot have published independent sources which are in-depth about Sørensen . Nor do we have published sources verifying the claims you made about Sørensen and his career in your keep argument. Further, given your stated connection to the subject, you should read the policy WP:Conflict of Interest, because you have just disclosed a COI.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 4meter4 for the advice! I am indeed unfamiliar with the process. Nunibad (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a case being made here for notability under NPROF, but reluctantly, I can't support it. According to gscholar, he has high citations for one paper, but the rest fall off rapidly leaving him with an h-index of only four – far too small for an NPROF case. There is far to little in sources to make a case for him as a BIO article. His lasting legacy is claimed to be in connection with Z notation and B method. However, this paper, which discusses this topic, paints a rather lesser role for Sørensen. It gives the inventor of the Z method as Abrial without mentioning the work of Sørensen at all, and gives Sørensen only as a collaborator of Abrial in the development of the B method. The rest of the article is concerned with posts that Sørensen held. No post automatically leads to notability on Wikipedia. Perhaps it should, but as guidelines stand, that is just him doing is job and does not amount to notability unless there are sources discussing his career in depth. SpinningSpark 19:12, 16 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 10:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Sanatan Dharma Vidyalaya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not now secondary schools are not automatically notable and we're not 2006 Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - especially because of its poor sourcing - and my own standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 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 Revert back to the rugby union player article. Per consensus Less Unless (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Abadie[edit]

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

This is a complex AfD because this article was actually hijacked in Aug 2012. Previously, this was about an Argentine international rugby union player. The footballer of this name has only played at a very low level in Argentina and doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Searches in Google, ProQuest, DDG etc. only return results relating to rugby union.

If both the rugby player and the footballer are non-notable, then we simply delete this article. If the rugby player is notable but the footballer isn't, then please revert the hijacking. If both are notable then please can an admin do some sort of splitting of the histories so we have Alejandro Abadie (footballer) with relevant edit history and Alejandro Abadie (rugby union) with relevant edit history? Sorry if AfD is not the best venue but I feel that notability is questionable here so AfD was what I thought would be best. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Rugby union, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither the rugby player or the footballer appear notable. Giant Snowman 12:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alos, oddly, the article lede states 'Alejandro Abadie is currently playing for Douglas Haig' but the Douglas Haig article doesn't list him. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the rugby union player article The rugby union player was an Argentine international, Italian wikipedia has some more information on him, and a very simple search that I've just done has resulted in what could possibly be coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be reasonable coverage on the rugby player, along with the sourcing on Italian wiki, there's this interview and this interview that I've found in a basic google search of his name, it appears he's certainly notable, and coverage is very similar to other Argentine few cap international rugby union players from the era. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to rugby union player and weak keep - The high-jacked article about the footballer fails WP:GNG, while the previous version about the rugby union player may satisfy GNG through the La Nacion article and a few other Spanish-language sources that are close to in-depth. It's not clear to me, but I might not be looking in the right places. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the rugby union player article per sources found by Rugbyfan22. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - following the comments in this discussion, I am in support of a revert Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 12 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 09:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andria Tayeh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No effective sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 08:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Jordan. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~Delete So I was all for weighing in with a nice fat Delete vote, but then you start to look at the Arabic language stuff (she acts in an Arabic language series) and you've got sources like Al Roeya here and Al Bawaba here which are definitely major mainstream Middle East media (oh, alliteration!). Now the mentions are passing, but now we start to chuck in English language stuff like Harper's and Cosmo Middle East and then you start adding the New Yorker and you're definitely into something here. Could be WP:TOOSOON? But I'm going keep for now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: The Comso ref is taken from her Instagram account, there is no support text and doesn't make a good reference, its dreadful. The alroeya is a 505, page not found (I can't see it). The New Yorker is a passing mention, its a single mention, stating she is in the cast. Regarding the Harpers Bazaar Arabia is a passing mention. So we have 3 very small passing mentions and a dead-page link. It doesn't fill me with confidence that she is notable and is not worthy of a Keep decision. scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Fixed Al Roeya link, not sure what happened there. I tend to agree, but think an Arabic speaker might do a better job of finding sources than me an' Google translate... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: I mention she is in the series and that is it. Yes. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Fine. FINE. To be honest I wasn't even convincing myself... Le sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON - per the sources, she has so far only had one significant role in a notable show, e.g. The New Yorker, Harper's Bazaar Arabia, Haaretz. My search of (Google translated) sources in Arabic have found fashion/Instagram overviews and interviews related to the show that do not seem sufficient to support a standalone article at this time, e.g. Laha, Hia. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Gránicz[edit]

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

Footballer who technically met the old WP:NFOOTBALL with 22 mins of professional football before dropping to the semi-pro level. No WP:SIGCOV presented in the article and nothing found in searches. Google News in Hungarian name order seems to have a few hits but all of them, without exception, are trivial mentions in squad lists and match updates. A Hungarian source search only yielded stats databases and other trivial coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 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 speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 22:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Loehr[edit]

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

Mr Loehr is likely notable, and there may be scope to write an encyclopaedia article in this space. But the hopeless puffery currently at this title is not a useful starting point for that article. I invite the community to consider deleting it, without prejudice to a proper encyclopaedia article being created later. —S Marshall T/C 06:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 06:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reverted the article back to its last version before it became a copy and paste from imdb/copyvio. Puffery is gone....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better, but is it really puffery-free now?—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I deleted everything and rewrote it, it's now a stub but I do intend on expanding it later. Meets GNG per refs in article and likely 3 or 4 in WP:CREATIVE Justi yaya 21:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm now content for this to be closed as "keep".—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Guy[edit]

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

No significant coverage. He is mostly known from the third season of Big Brother. SL93 (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete admittedly Jason Guy is not the most distinctive name for searching, even as a single string, but his name mostly seems to pop up in listicles ("best Big Brother alliances") that I don't think meet SIGCOV. He's got plenty of credits as anchor at WESH in Orlando but those don't really help, either. Every other source I thought could be significant turned out to be another Jason Guy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable reality show performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any of the notability criteria. IrishOsita (talk) 02:46, 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 redirect to Darkover series. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darkover (TV series)[edit]

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

Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla and the Bird, this one got a brief burst of sourcing at the initial announcement, but literally nothing afterward. If literally nothing happened other than the initial announcement, then there's nothing to write about, and therefore no notability. Prod was contested with a suggestion to merge, but there's just too little verifiable content here worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ not seeing any actual policy grounds for deletion here. Merge seems entirely viable if users other than TPH want to go that way but this is not “Articles for Mergeletion”. Nominative is currently at ANI for spamming Prod/AfD with junk entries and this appears to be an example of such. Artw (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:V not good enough for you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cover a period of 4 years, not counting the tweet which would bring it to 6? Not seeing a V issue hear whatsoever given the Variety article, suspect you just threw that one in for luck. Artw (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Nobody has any time for this. I added what was worthwhile to the main article, please go ahead and ~~Close~~ this and Redirect over to there. It's what's should have been done in the first place. Artw (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not merge or copy during the AfD per the fifth/last point of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). I also contacted you directly regarding WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline, shortcut WP:PATT). Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkover series per Artw's additions and comments, though I would suggest "keep" if it wasn't for them. Merko (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as recommended above. If it never went into production, it wouldnt meet recommendations in WP:NTV, which were to follow the steps of WP:NFILM to eliminate the hundreds of projects that get stuck in development hell or cancelled. -2pou (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkover series. The actual added sources are all just pretty routine "announcement" type blurbs, which I honestly don't feel actually passes the WP:GNG. And, even if they do, the amount of information that is possible to write about this never-produced series is so brief that it still would not be appropriate to split off to a separate article, per WP:NOPAGE. Regardless of the reasoning, having the couple of sentences on the main Darkover series article, which Artw has already done, and then Redirecting there is the appropriate amount of coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: NAC oveturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_June_5#Darkover_(TV_series). Relisting to be sure it shows on the log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apologies on my previous bad advice - AfD should have been WITHDRAWN, not closed, and the redirect put in. Since it wasn't and we are going through the motions my vote remains Redirect, though this is effectively a merge as I've copied everythong worthwhile over. Artw (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkover series#Proposed_TV_series, since the information that's interesting: they tried to make a TV show, didn't happen, is now there. Skynxnex (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma and Skynxnex. starship .paint (exalt) 07:37, 10 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 02:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Keli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:39, 4 June 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) 02:39, 4 June 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, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is clearly not enough sourcing to justify an article. I am trying to not get too exicited that the day of the micro-stub may be finally coming to a close.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 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. ✗plicit 02:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen water[edit]

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

We at FTN recently analyzed the article, which is somewhat unfocused and used mainly pro-fringe sources for medical content, and concluded that the rest should be deleted. The remaining sources are all WP:MEDPRIMARY and possibly WP:PROFRINGE, and some of them are not about hydrogen administered in aqueous solution, but rather on purported therapeutic uses of hydrogen in general. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, as it turned out, none of the sources were about the purported topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally proposed the article be merged into hydrogen, but I had wrongly assumed that at least some of the sources were valid. IpseCustos (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too was looking for a redirect/merge candidate to make this less likely to be recreated, but don’t find a suitable target. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article was gutted heavily immediately before this AfD, and all references subsequently deleted. Here is a previous version, lest people look only at the current state of the article. Remember that not all statement about a controversial treatment are biomedical information, per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_v._general_information and Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. To assist Googling, "hydrogen water" is also known as "hydrogen-rich water" or "H2-rich water". From Time magazine for framing: Some of these companies claim that adding more hydrogen to water increases energy, improves recovery after a workout and reduces inflammation, making regular water look like a downright underachiever. But the science behind those claims is weak, backed only by a few encouraging studies in rats and mice and even fewer—and smaller—trials in people... Even without that confirmation, hydrogen water is the next big thing in wellness in Japan. The Ministry of Health recently approved hydrogen-infused saline IVs to help people recovering from infections and other conditions, and bathing in hydrogen water is becoming a popular spa treatment for fighting wrinkles and skin damage.^[1] That passage contains biomedical claims and nonbiomedical statements about regulation and popularity.

There are multiple recent review articles that evaluate hydrogen therapy in a variety of settings, whether as an inhaled gas, a drink, or injection.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] A recent review on hydrogen-rich water in gut microbiome concludes: "HRW might be an up-and-coming compound that might tune endogenous H2 homeostasis and modulate gut microbiota but it should still be perceived as an experimental drink and not widely recommended to the general public."^[9] This article could perhaps be renamed to Hydrogen therapy or clinical hydrogen, but regardless of whether a stand-alone article on hydrogen-infused water is warranted, it seems that the emerging research on hydrogen (in cells, animals, or humans) might warrant mention in one or more articles, in the style of Oxygen therapy or Heavy water#Effect on animals. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a new article “Hydrogen therapy” sounds more appropriate. Given the thinness of the claims for hydrogen water, I see no need for a standalone. A combined article would make it easier to put all the claims in proper context. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the Time article quoted above^[1] (passim; redacted by DePiep for shortening): But the science behind those claims is weak, ... Perricone sells 'Dr. Perricone HW' @ $3/can, admits that it’s not yet known exactly how added hydrogen in water potentially works on the body; "I don’t see any downside" ... The studies to prove whether that’s the case haven’t been conducted ... it’s not clear how much hydrogen is needed to have therapeutic benefits and how much water you’d have to drink to reap the potential rewards ... "We don’t know anything about dosing or the frequency" .. no regulation to standardize formulas—mainly because there isn’t a solid scientific base to determine how much is needed to affect various conditions ... "It doesn’t seem like something that is risky". IMO this reflects the gist of the article better, as opposed the single positive and outstanding quote above. Presenting this article as an introducing source (here), is sort of self-defeating. I'm not qualified to assess Meds here, I'll leave that to RS and MED/FRINGE/&tc. researchers. DePiep (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Park, Alice (August 21, 2017). "Is Hydrogen Water Actually Good For You?". Time.
^ Tian, Yan; Zhang, Yafang; Wang, Yu; Chen, Yunxi; Fan, Weiping; Zhou, Jianjun; Qiao, Jing; Wei, Youzhen (20 December 2021). "Hydrogen, a Novel Therapeutic Molecule, Regulates Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, and Apoptosis". Frontiers in Physiology. 12: 789507. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.789507. PMC 8721893. PMID 34987419.
^ Zhang Y, Tan S, Xu J, Wang T (2018). "Hydrogen Therapy in Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases: from Bench to Bedside". Cell Physiol Biochem. 47 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1159/000489737. PMID 29763888. S2CID 21725341.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Tan, Xin; Shen, Fang; Dong, Wan-Li; Yang, Yi; Chen, Gang (2018). "The role of hydrogen in Alzheimer's disease". Medical Gas Research. 8 (4): 176. doi:10.4103/2045-9912.248270. PMID 30713672.
^ Ge, Li; Yang, Ming; Yang, Na-Na; Yin, Xin-Xin; Song, Wen-Gang (24 November 2017). "Molecular hydrogen: a preventive and therapeutic medical gas for various diseases". Oncotarget. 8 (60): 102653–102673. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.21130. PMC 5731988. PMID 29254278.
^ Ostojic, Sergej M. (19 May 2015). "Molecular hydrogen: An inert gas turns clinically effective". Annals of Medicine. 47 (4): 301–304. doi:10.3109/07853890.2015.1034765. PMID 25936365. S2CID 19469206.
^ Ohta, Shigeo (2011). "Recent Progress Toward Hydrogen Medicine: Potential of Molecular Hydrogen for Preventive and Therapeutic Applications". Current Pharmaceutical Design. 17 (22): 2241–2252. doi:10.2174/138161211797052664. PMC 3257754. PMID 21736547.
^ Shen, Meihua; Zhang, Hongying; Yu, Congjun; Wang, Fan; Sun, Xuejun (2014). "A review of experimental studies of hydrogen as a new therapeutic agent in emergency and critical care medicine". Medical Gas Research. 4 (1): 17. doi:10.1186/2045-9912-4-17. PMC 4406336. PMID 25905011.
^ Ostojic, Sergej M. (March 2021). "Hydrogen-rich water as a modulator of gut microbiota?". Journal of Functional Foods. 78: 104360. doi:10.1016/j.jff.2021.104360. S2CID 233838734.

Comment. I'm not qualified to assess. I imagine 99.99% of editors here also are not qualified to assess. It seems like there should be a separate AfD process for what seems like borderline cutting-edge science or maybe fringe theories. This isn't easy when most of us are anonymous and the rare specialist cannot be identified. Good luck, who ever has to close this one. CT55555 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current state of the article is useless. Basically all water is hydrogen and oxygen. You want to keep this, it will need a better title and some sort of sourcing. The prior version looks like a copyvio from WebMD anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Article content does not determine notability. Lots of notable subjects have crappy Wikipedia articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it does if it's unsourced and has no links, this is little more than an essay. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have serious concerns that reliable sources will be sufficient to have a hydrogen water page separate from hydrogen therapy. Couple of fundamental physics issues make some of the claims difficult to swallow. One is that hydrogen gas is very difficult to store in a container as it diffuses out of most materials. So unless these are stainless steel containers or something like that, the dose reaching the subject is likely to be much lower than stated. The second is that once ingested, hydrogen gas rapidly diffuses through the body (in a matter of minutes) so saying that the hydrogen water directly affected the gut microbiota is logically implausible, as no “hydrogen water” will reach the colon. There may be a different story with inhaled hydrogen, where you’re actually able to get a real dose into the subject, and it may be that hydrogen water, through bodily absorption of ingested hydrogen, does have some therapeutic use, but to separate a hydrogen water article from a hydrogen therapy article is may result in having to duplicate mechanism of action sections. Keeping the whole thing together avoids these potential pitfalls. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No relevant sources Salimfadhley (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While the therapy is almost certainly bollocks, I think coverage in Time in particular makes it barely notable bollocks. Other than Time, the ref list above is a weird mix of reputable (Frontiers in Physiology), uncertain (Medical Gas Research), and bad (Oncotarget) sources. PianoDan (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most of those other references were not actually about the article subject - they were about hydrogen therapy carried out through means other than hydrogen water. Agricolae (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and restore a good version, per PianoDan and Oaktree_b. I have heard of this fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which version was the good one? The one that violated how we are supposed to handle fringe, or the one that coatracked a bunch of references about other things rather than the subject of the article? Agricolae (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete, so, neither. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Write a new version based solely on reputable secondary sources, such as the Time article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Timereferenced has been added to the article. We still need at least one secondary source for this article, preferably a WP:MEDRS to back up claims that the evidence for this product is limited. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The least bad redirect/merge target I found for this material is Solubility#Solubility of gases, which would not really be a good fit for the sole reliable source. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the so-far best effort to turn this material into something acceptable yields an article clearly falling short of GNG. Given the past MEDRS issues with the article, we should not be looking for excuses to keep this material. In the absence of a second reliable source or a quality redirect/merge target, the only ATD I would support with the sourcing we have is draftification. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:13, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Trischitta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability; only one notable role for a few years on One Life to Live. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:19, 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)} 07:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable because of his multi-year role on One Life to Live, backed by the reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR specifies multiple notable roles. Jack Manning appears to be the only notable role. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bgsu98, the word "multiple" does not appear in WP:NACTOR. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions” Bgsu98 (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bgsu98, you are referencing Wikipedia:Notability (films), which is about films, the kind shown in movie theaters; he is an actor who has appeared in more than 100 episodes of a soap opera, the kind they show on television. Furthermore, the quote you cite doesn't appear there. The article meets WP:N, even if it doesn't meet your misreading of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alansohn: No, I am not referencing Wikipedia:Notability (films). I am referencing WP:NACTOR, which is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people). It states:
    
    Entertainers
    
    Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities:
    Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
    
    Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
    
    It states that for an actor to be notable, he must have had "significant roles" in "multiple notable films [and/or] television shows." Andrew Trischitta had one notable role on One Life to Live, and that was it. And please don't speak to me like I'm an idiot. "...a soap opera, the kind they show on television." No, really? Bgsu98 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bgsu98, you were the one who linked to Wikipedia:Notability (films), not me. Trischitta appeared in 126 episodes and meets WP:N. You have never addressed that. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Life to Live, since his appearance there seems to be the only thing even vaguely notable he has done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert you are arguing to delete the article (a redirect would have the same net result as a redirect) because "the only thing even vaguely notable he has done" is to appear in 126 episodes of a major soap opera? Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the only thing vaguely notable about someone is an appearance in one show thatn yes, we normally redirect to the article on the show and do not have a freestanding article on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Johnpacklambert, can you point me to the consensus that 126 appearances is "vaguely notable"? One or two, I'd agree with you. But 126!?!?! Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one notable role, but reliable no sources found, leaning delete. Two pages in GNews, only mentioning him in passing. Unsure if the award is notable. Even the sources used in the article are only passing mentions, simply confirming he existed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one notable role, therefore does not meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 9 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 01:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Meijer[edit]

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

Non-notable physiotherapist Mooonswimmer 00:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For an article about a Dutch person, it is worthwhile checking the corresponding article in the Dutch-language Wikipedia at nl:Gerard Meijer (Feyenoord). I added some references from the Dutch article which may be enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Medicine, and Netherlands. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 4 June 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, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source that Eastmain found in Het Vrije Volk had some promise, however, it is a human interest story and much of it is primary. I found a similar article at Rijnmond. This is not enough to establish notability. The fact that Nlwiki carries this isn't very informative either. Nlwiki is the worst larger Wikipedia. The text of the article can be fixed but is really bad. Among others it's about the matches Meijer has seen from nearby and the players he massaged. So WP:NOTINHERETED also applies. Creator was very active from 2006 to 2007, which appear as youthful years. Thank you, Mooonswimmer, for a useful nomination! gidonb (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG, and after additional sources the article still makes no legitimate claim to notability. IrishOsita (talk) 14:21, 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Chadwick[edit]

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

The refs given (and I didn't see significantly better ones on a BEFORE) don't add up to SIGCOV or notability. Ingratis (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chadwick is listed in Debrett's People of Today which Wikipedia describes as follows: "contains biographical details of approximately 20,000 notable people from the entire spectrum of British society. The selection of entrants is made by the editorial staff of Debrett's and entries are reviewed annually to ensure accuracy and relevance. ... Like its rival publication Who's Who, selection of entrants is at the editorial team's discretion and there is no payment or obligation to purchase." If Chadwick is notable enough to get into Debrett's People of Today, he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran (talk)
Delete No sources found, a total of 6 hits on his name in Gnews, and most aren't about him. He gets mentions for the law firm he used to work for, but only in passing. He might be notable with a religious context, not for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He might be notable with a religious context, not for wikipedia." I thought that Wikipedia covered all topics including religion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was implying that he might be better served in an encyclopedia like the Catholic Encyclopedia, not all priests are notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick is not a priest. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"member of a religious order", making him even less notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No sources found." I have added sources from The Daily Telegraph, The Catholic Herald, and Hereford Times. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most only mention him in passing, they aren't about him. I'm still not seeing notability for a cleric. There is 13 000 of these fellows in the Order of Malta if memory serves me, most don't need an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2016 there were only 55 Knights of Justice (they are the ones who take the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience). Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As said in the nomination, there appear to be no very significant sources (rather than no sources at all), and it still looks that way to me: the ones you've added are primarily about the Latin mass in England, to which Chadwick is incidental. Interviews, I understand, don't count as independent sources. There's no question of his being notable in a legal context and from the sources provided it doesn't appear that he is notable in a religious context either. You could perhaps merge some of the most relevant content of the sources to the article on the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, although it doesn't actually mention him as it stands. Ingratis (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a Knight of Justice Fra Julian is now, since the death of the Lieutenant Fra Marco today, one of the 55 people who can be elected Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (I'm not sure that he has the ancestry to allow this). My reason for creating this article about a knight of Justice is so that there is easy access to information about candidates. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above comments that the sources here don't quite cut it: none of them are both significant (i.e. more than a passing mention) and independent (i.e. more than an interview). He does appear in People of Today, but its reliability is uncertain and, in any event, it's not the sort of source that automatically makes someone notable under guidelines like WP:ANYBIO. I'm not finding any solid alternatives to deletion, either: he's dabbled in a lot of things, so there's no single article that would make an appropriate merge/redirect target, in my view. If Chadwick does receive GNG-qualifying coverage in the future (perhaps if he becomes a candidate for some other position), then I'd support restoring the article at that time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- I am very doubtful if what he has done and achieved is enough to constitute WP-notability. I think we should assume good faith and that the content is true. BLP issues require sources and we have some though perhaps not the best ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per McFerran. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. While I agree that the Debrett's People of Today source is significant coverage, it is only one source. I would also consider the 2009 Daily Telegraph source significant coverage. The other sources are all trivial mentions or are interviews which lack independence. Given that there are only two sources which constitute significant independent coverage, this is not enough to reach the minimum requirement of multiple sources ("the rule of 3") to meet SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:56, 15 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Hampton[edit]

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

The actress probably doesn't meet the notability requirements for actors. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough acceptable sources to pass and subject does meet NACTOR. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How so? A lot of the roles are minor. Plus the articles are not substantive.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20120321162014/http://www.holby.tv/news/present-news/item/420-fiona-hampton-joins-holby
Looks like a blog.
- https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/jul/19/a-midsummers-night-dream-review-trevor-nunn-ipswich
Is a review on the play itself.
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w0bgl#synopsis
Is just the show listing. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NACTORS doesn't apply to a subject's overall career. Whether they're 'minor' or major, they pass. Nate • (chatter) 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3)"

None of her roles are particularly significant or I doubt she had made several unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to the entertainment fields. So she fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. Google reveals no WP:SIGCOV that establishes notability. IrishOsita (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NACTOR* IrishOsita (talk) 23:15, 10 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 01:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sapati Umutaua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:05, 4 June 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) 00:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:38, 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) 01:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrell Sale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 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) 00:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search showed no WP:SIGCOV (or really anything outside stats and playing bio). Article itself is incomplete and does not establish any type of notability either, whether WP:GNG or otherwise. IrishOsita (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be established as a notable subject. Pamelagoo (talk) 17:07, 9 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 01:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faafetai Hunt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 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) 00:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, unless reliable sources are added. Sahaib (talk) 16:14, 9 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.