< July 02	July 04 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JamisonParker. ✗plicit 00:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & Photographs[edit]

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

The single link is dead, but an editor insists on recreating without attempting to improve the article at all, Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JamisonParker. The existing sources in the article are not sufficient to meet the general and specific criteria. I also couldn't find material to reference the article. For the recreation, it's necessary to add independent and reputable sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed by A.WagnerC, if the article is recreated again protect the redirect. Jeepday (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per A.WagnerC. Mccapra (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JamisonParker. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic and PunkNews, with traces of Melodic and Rolling Stone nowhere to be found. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supply and Depend[edit]

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

Unfortunately, there is an editor who believes that an AllMusic listing is sufficient to meet WP:NALBUM. This particular one is very brief, and does not qualify as a single in-depth review, let alone multiple as required by the SNG. And definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Allmusic, AbsolutePunk and Alternative Press are all listed as acceptable reliable sources under WP:A/S. The coverage satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NALBUMS.RF23 (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And only one of those is actually referenced in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not all music is reliable enough that everything that appears there counts as a reliable source towards passing GNG, GNG requires multiple sources so we do not keep articles with only one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The AllMusic and Alternative Press articles are reliable. I also found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (German) and [7] (German). That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reviewed by many. Geschichte (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources have been added that meet WP:NALBUM. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources added and mentioned here. /Julle (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheChronium 07:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Young[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only sources I could find were trivial mentions of Nora Young and some student media that doesn't count toward notability based on WP:RSSM. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being host of a nationally-networked radio program that's been on the air for almost 15 years is the kind of notability claim where we should be making every effort to maintain an article rather than deleting them — and while I'll grant that most of the referencing here was bad, it really didn't require much effort to improve it: once again, the real issue is that for a person whose notability claim stretches back to the 1990s, you have to dig into databases, because Google is not going to find coverage from 30 or even 20 years ago. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Clovermoss (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a bunch of sources out there that could be used to build on the article and that do seem to indicate some degree of notability. There's things like interviews of her in Maclean's and Women & Tech, event notices of her giving lectures such as at UBC, at McMaster, and at UNB, this 2014 article about a talk she gave, CBC covering her book, this from the Winnipeg Free Press, her getting an honorary degree from WLU, etc... NHCLS (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:GNG as the host of a notable program. Alex-h (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Kirchoff article from 1995 is 1,600 words almost all about Young (her career, her personality, her approach to the show) and that was in the first year of the program, when her career was only just beginning. Searching my library's newspapers for "'Norah Young' CBC," it looks like there are hundreds of articles in ProQuest which mention her in some way. The article itself could use some more love but she certainly meets WP:SIGCOV. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources have been added. Meets WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bar associations of Haryana[edit]

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

No sources are used that relate to the article's subject matter, instead, it's a source about the State of Haryana's population. No links anywhere else on Wikipedia. This does not meet the requirements under GNG. The user who created this article has been creating articles for the sake of creation with little to no effort in improving them.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the user who created this article has created similar articles with related subjects and they are listed in the Bar associations of Haryana article. These articles also don't fit general notability guidelines and the only links/sources are directly from the organizations' website which is not a reliable and independent source:

--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could have been well PRODed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination Ratnahastin(t.c) 03:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tuniewicz[edit]

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

A non-neutral autobiography. Most of the prose is an unreferenced BLP, and the sources that are cited are all primary and unreliable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being chairman of a state chapter of a minor political party is not an "inherent" notability freebie under WP:NPOL, and the footnoting consists entirely of primary sources which are not support for notability at all, with no evidence being shown of reliable source coverage about him in real media to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG lacks independent coverage. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was going to try to improve to neutral language, but then looked at the sources... Does not meet any criteria. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonio Sanjairag[edit]

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

The article basically fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning keep~~ A short search did turn up more than a few Thai articles about him, including from Thai Rath [8] and Goal.com [9] and others [10][11][12]. Alvaldi (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's very little, kinda WP:TABLOID, WP:ROUTINE. Govvy (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete. After thinking it over, the coverage is not enough for him to pass WP:GNG as it is mostly just centered around his signing in May 2021. Alvaldi (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's too early for an article of him. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG (coverage is not enough) and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment- I agree with Lerdsuwa, its too early and the article fails GNG so it should delete or move to draft.Iamfarzan (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of basketball players who died during their careers[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association footballers who died during their careers, this is an unencyclopedic cross-categorization that does not distinguish why it's particularly notable that a number of people who play basketball tragically died young in largely irrelevant accidents, just as people in any other profession (or non-professional activity like for NCAA players) can. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL since more than a third of the list is non-notable people. Reywas92^Talk 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation so violates WP:NOT; what would be required for an article like this to be kept would be reliable sources discussing in depth the connection between basketball players dying and that death taking place while they are contracted to a team. Essentially, this is just a list of players that died young and, whilst that is certainly tragic, Wikipedia is not a memorial page and we do not need a list article on people of every line of work dying before they were able to retire from that line of work unless online or offline media clearly deem such a topic to be a notable one itself. At the moment, we have a list of deceased sportspeople sourced to obituaries and death announcements but no indication that the intersection itself is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the assessment by Spiderone. Having tried to find a source that would connect the players on this list by way of their deaths while under contract and coming up without any connection except that they played basketball and died leads me to WP:NOT. We can't have a list for every eventual possibility so, unless the topic is clearly defined as notable by reliable sources, it should not be included. --ARose Wolf 20:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This could be an encyclopedic category. Compared to those in most other professions, pro basketball players (and pro athletes in general) are much more likely to have Wikipedia articles and generate substantial news coverage, including upon death. In addition, pro athletes (including basketball players) retire very young relative to those in other professions, so a player dying during his/her career is quite notable. This list should be limited to hoopers with Wikipedia articles. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable when a basketball player dies during their career, because (a) they're likely to be well known and (b) they're likely to be quite young. So all these deaths have significant newspaper and website coverage. That seems like a strong reason to document on this site.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion on deleting or keeping the article, but I have to push back on the nominator's assertion that "a third of the list is non-notable people". Lack of a Wikipedia article does not preclude their notability. If that were the case new articles wouldn't be a thing. See WP:Red link —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My proposal for only including players with articles was to prevent the list from becoming an indiscriminate list of non-notable high-school and rec-league basketball players who happened to die during their careers. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Same rationale as the association footballers Afd, so the verdict should be the same. People die before they retire, regardless of profession; this is not significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. See: 1) "Big-Time Basketball: So Many Tragedies". Baltimore Sun. March 15, 1995. 2) "Sudden Cardiac Death in Famous Athletes, Lessons Learned, Heterogeneity in Expert Recommendations and Pitfalls of Contemporary Screening Strategies". Journal of Atrial Fibrillation. 3) "Collier's death raises NBA heart issue". Chicago Tribune. October 16, 2005. The nomination is misleading, as the cited AfD mainly deleted List of association footballers who died during their careers as a duplicate of another list, which still exists. Per that nomination: We already have List of association footballers who died while playing, which has a clearer, better defined scope. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American football players who died during their career was closed as "keep", so there's no precedent that this has to be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The football list was Afd'd back in 2014. Times (and consensus) change. It may be time to renominate it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was a followup procedural keep in 2020 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American football players who died during their careers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yikes, I nominated that list. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell does an article about Sudden cardiac death of athletes require the listing of car crashes and suicides? That article has a list that could be improved, or List of basketball players who died while playing may be more reasonable than this. Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a matter of content; however, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. That said, the media can lump any "tragic" death together, regardless of cause: "Death in sports: Kobe Bryant latest on a long and heartbreaking list". The Mercury News. January 27, 2020.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NOTMEMORIAL claim seems tied to the existence of some red links. Per WP:CSC, it can be reasonable to limit the list to notable people—blue links and red links for which a page can be reasonably created. However WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, so it's another misleading basis to delete. The red links can be cleaned up—either boldly removing it, boldly turing red links into blue or requesting creation at Wikipedia:Requested articles, or otherwise flagging the issue—without resorting to an AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you’re going to nominate this one can we also nominate similar lists (like this one and that one) so this isn’t some piecemeal crap done over several months/years? Just make a decision on the whole class of articles. Rikster2 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bundling failed before here.—Bagumba (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be taken one at a time and evaluated as such. What I find amazing, and sometimes frustrating, about Wikipedia is that consensus on this AfD may not be consensus on another similar AfD. In fact, we are instructed not to say, "If this, then this." Each AfD stands alone. In this case, the subject is not notable. If notability is not inherited then notability is not conferred upon a subject, in this case a list, just because it contains notable subjects as blue links. The reason why we keep lists of geological features is because the "US Geological Survey" and other entities actually keep lists of these features. If reliable sources already had a list containing these players and that was the subject of the source then a list might be appropriate. I could suggest this might be better as a category but that may be for another time and place. --ARose Wolf 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a notable list because it is unusual that basketball players, at the height of their physical prowess, would die during their career. It is long enough to have a list but not too long that it would be unmanageable. Most basketball players have articles, and their deaths would be well-reported in the press. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Combining the individual obituaries is not the same as discussion of the list as a whole, so this fails WP:LISTN. Car crash, homicide, and plane crash deaths are utterly irrelevant to basketball or the players being physically fit. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mike Selinker . 2603:7000:2143:8500:E58F:3052:980D:E15B (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-definied list with a clear inclusion criteria. Everything is sourced here, and if the issue is the red-links, then form a consensus on the article's talkpage to only include names with their own wiki-article. As a side note, a not too dis-similar list for cyclists is a WP:FL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this list was more specific about players who died as a the result of playing their particular sport, in this case basketball, then it would be "well-defined" and "similar". The fact that they died from completely unrelated causes and played basketball have no correlation whatsoever. No reliable source has been presented that links these players deaths beyond that they all played basketball. This list is completely dis-similar from the List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death and the List of association footballers who died while playing as the former was specifically about cyclists who died while cycling or had cycling related injuries and the latter is specifically about footballers who died from football related injuries. This list is not about basketballers who died from basketball related injuries.--ARose Wolf 18:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Spiderone. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic of interest in the real world. There's a recent podcast series called "Death at the Wing" which discusses various basketball players who died young. The 2001 book Basketball's Most Wanted had a chapter called "Death in the Afternoon", showing that people were compiling such information long before Wikipedia. Whenever an active NBA player dies, several articles will mention the last time an active NBA player died, as in this article about Bryce Dejean-Jones' death. The discussion about List of association footballers who died during their careers shows little indication that anyone even tried to look for sources, and I'm uncomfortable with that discussion setting a sweeping precedent. Zagalejo (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo. This should have never appeared in AFD, stop nominating articles which have clear notability. Wikipedia has tons of lists like this, and many are well written, I fail to see why this one can't be here. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an inescapably natural and real-world topic of interest. My view of this coincides with Zagalejo's, but as soon as I saw the AfD in the log, these words spontaneously formed in my mind. Also, I join Bagumba's argument that WP:LISTN has been met, and that the nomination is a little problematic in that it creates an impression of a precedent that isn't factual. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Initially I was a bit dubious about this, but the reality is, its a notable topic for many people, and would have real world interest. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Dell[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Sources are about the wider campaign and not about him specifically. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources with significant discussion of the individual. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're a journalist. Hanjifairies (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like all journalists, we would need sources about him, not sources by him. The only source I could find about him was the present BBC article. Every other article I could find was written by him. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A journalist just doing his job does not make him notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lacks coverage on google news to clear notability guidelines. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Norouzi[edit]

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

Majid Norouzi

Actor of questionable notability. This article was moved from article space to draft space once by User:Onel5969 with the notation in the edit summary that possible undisclosed paid editing was being segregated. There has subsequently been no response to the concern about paid editing except to move the article back into article space. The main claim to fame is a television series, Gando (TV series), in a role that may or may not itself be a major role. The Gando article is being expanded by the author of this article in a way that appears to be the construction of a walled garden.

The references are all IMDB, and so none of them are reliable.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	IMDB - Majid Norouzi	IMDB - Own entry	No	No
2	IMDB - Maslahat	IMDB	No	No
3	IMDB - Gando	IMDB	No	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:UPE should never be encouraged. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 13:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy delete Mardetanha (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ravensfire (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABZY Movies[edit]

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

Channel has minimal coverage in sources, not enough for a stand-alone article, the list of movies is unsourced and of questionable reasons for inclusion. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN by nominator - article moved to draft space by creator, withdrawing AFD for now. Ravensfire (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore The Broken[edit]

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

Restore the Broken Non-notable band that does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria. As a stub, it makes no claim of general notability. There is only one reference, which does not appear to be independent and is not significant coverage.

This article was created in article space, and then (correctly) moved to draft space by User:GermanKity, and has now been moved back to article space by its originator. Moving it to draft space a second time would be move-warring. This might be a candidate for A7 as a band with no credible claim of significance, but that might be challenged, so a deletion discussion is in order, Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank You for taking this into my notice. Still, I can see the article lacks significant coverage that could justify the notability of this band. fails WP:BAND. GermanKity (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability does not pass WP:NMUSIC; unable to find much, if anything, in the way of SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not pass WP:BAND. Alex-h (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Completely non-notable per WP:BAND. Niftysquirrel (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spin Me Round (film)[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage, production has not been particularly notable (basic casting/filming announcements), should be in draftspace until notability is evident BOVINEBOY2008 14:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Fails WP:NFF. Also, WP:TOOSOON applies. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom and Donaldd23. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Tristan[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an orchestra conductor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. While there are notability claims being made here, they're referenced almost entirely to primary sources and YouTube videos, rather than reliable source coverage about his career in the media -- and while there are a couple of media hits lightly sprinkled on top of all the junk sourcing, there aren't enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, not every music award that exists is always an automatic free pass over NMUSIC's award criterion -- includability on that basis still comes down to the quality and independence of the sources that you can or can't show to support the award claims, because it's necessary to establish that an award is a notable one (i.e. one that gets media coverage) before it can confer notability on its winners.
There's also a possible conflict of interest of some sort here, as the creator used the edit summary "Add my all information, myself, my early life and my career and about my self" -- however, they also used the same edit summary to create Draft:Bred Lambert about a completely different person, so this is more likely to be a paid public relations consultant rather than Tristan himself (effectively confirmed by the fact that the editor's deleted contributions also include a version of his own userpage in which he described himself as an "expert SEO professional and digital marketing".) But that's still COI regardless, and paid editing is not the way into Wikipedia.
Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Felipe Tristan from having to have better references than YouTube videos and the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to advertorial tone (name-dropping cities and awards to imply notability) without actual WP:RS to back that up and pass WP:GNG. The likely conflict of interest is also a concern; the article would have to be written from the ground up regardless of notability at this point. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of reliable sources it looks like a GNG fail, but even if it was a pass the article would likely have to be TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trombone suicide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for WP:V and WP:OR for 8 years. My own searching finds lots of YouTube videos, but this is the only thing I could find that comes close to being a WP:RS, and it's questionable whether that meets either WP:SECONDARY or WP:SIGCOV. I also found this, but that's a blog post which clearly fails WP:RS. I also tried looking for "headchoppers", with equally poor results. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the sources seem to come from a forum. Wah-wah. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A problematic article and AfD nomination. I, too, feel like it's a topic probably deserving of a wiki entry...but per our guidelines it has to meet the RS test. As noted, there are plenty of mentions to be found online--forums, comments on videos, etc--but these are not RS. A mention of it in a single book is not enough, nor is an acknowledgement of its existence in a local paper. The bigger reason that argues for its deletion, however, is in the first AfD debate where the entry's creator essentially reveals this article is original research, conducted without consulting existing sources, but rather, that such sources will someday be written and thereby justify this wiki article. That's not the way its done. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of sources and proper verifyablility. Though, it does appear to be a thing per the youtube videos, it might just be a colloquial phrase? I would love to see some individuals with some experience with marching band weigh in here; they might be abel to find proper sources or could in some way verify its validity. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted through G7. Geschichte (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Gringa Vacana[edit]

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

I am declining an A7 tag on this article, as there are sources, and I can see potential in improvement and getting more. However, I had a look for such sources, and couldn't see anything at all. I know Good Housekeeping doesn't turn up at WP:RSN much but I don't think it's a deprecated source by any stretch of the imagination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per consensus and WP:NOTNEWS. Less Unless (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Ante Šutalo[edit]

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

To the person who created this article, I'm sorry for your loss. I assume you know this boy. However, there are thousands of suicides in Australia per year, and I don't see how this one is notable. Many suicides receive a passing mention in online news websites. Steelkamp (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Shows significant amount of coverage about the boy who committed suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.111.56 (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE of !vote by logged-out IP of sockblocked article creator. --Finngall ^talk 21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There are more than 3 news sources for this and seemed to get sufficient press coverage to warrant an article. While there isn't much WP:DEPTH and is mostly local, it is WP:DIVERSE Tautomers (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is an awful tragedy, but as a recent news story there is no evidence yet that it will have lasting coverage in reliable sources. There appears to be no particular reason to assume that such coverage will eventuate. The sources also look mainly to be specialist news publications, and some may not be reliable. As such, the notability criteria are not met at present. If sustained coverage develops, an article can be recreated. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5 as a new article created by a sock of a blocked user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary. --Finngall ^talk 20:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It received coverage in a wide range of publications, enough to barely meet notability. I don't think it qualifying for G5 as an IP editor contributed substantially to it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I find the above rationales for keeping the article persuasive, particularly there being sufficient coverage and it providing WP:DIVERSE. Loquacious Folly (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here. For articles about happenings, there needs to be something more than just "coverage" to be notable. There needs to be something unique, something that makes it not just run-of-the-mill. Cyberbullying related suicides are, unfortunately, run-of-the-mill. Nothing about this seems to be at all unique that would justify having a Wikipedia page. Mlb96 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jackattack1597: The IP to which you refer was the logged-out IP of the article creator and had received a short block as such, and several other IPs in this range have been part of the sockfarm (see the relevant SPI). Therefore it should not be considered as an independent entity for G5 purposes. --Finngall ^talk 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE.-KH-1 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Kazemian[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. All sources are passing mentions (mostly listed as one of the journalists arrested during a protest), and cannot find significant coverage in independent sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, exactly only passing mentions, I looked it up among Persian sources, result was same Mardetanha (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandeep Bevli[edit]

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

it fails WP:GNG and has lack of reliable sources and also fails WP:NACTOR Preetykaur761 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the first source [13] in the article is from The Times of India, it does read a bit weird and not enough to establish notability. All the other sources are unreliable, and the article seems like at least in part written for publicity ("Mandeep has a good sense of humor", "A self made professional Mandeep", "Mandeep Bevli is a celebrated performer"). Indeed not notable, and no better sources to be found. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Rhein[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; I can't find any significant coverage of this person. And while the list of awards looks impressive at first glance, it's not clear that any of these is a "major music competition" as required by WP:MUSICBIO, nor does the subject appear to meet any of the other criteria listed there. It should also be noted that the creator is suspected to be closely connected to the subject, see User talk:Cor32ed#February 2021. Lennart97 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG. Article seems borderline WP:G11. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Dear[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as coverage is not sustained.

The article has 3 citations. The first is a dead URL for an art store and as such would not be sufficiently independent if an archive copy could be found. The second and third, coverage in Creative Boom magazine and This is South Devon, a local paper, appear to be reliable secondary sources, but this is not sustained coverage as required by the GNG.

A search for sources turned up several art stores, but no independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reviews, collections, or exhibitions in good galleries... Appears to be mainly a commercial artist doing contracted work. Does not fit any of our notability guidelines. --- Possibly ☎ 22:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Martin of Tours Parish Church (Bocaue)[edit]

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

Skeleton article. No content except infobox. Unsourced since 2015 too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With improvements by Hariboneagle927, the article isn't a "skeleton article" anymore. Weak keep, maybe? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @HueMan1: the article can now be kept. I withdraw my nomination JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Loud[edit]

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

Fails GNG lacks reliable coverage Tulkijasi (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs work but the band is notable, with coverage in the Washington Post, plus sources not currently cited in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BIG KEEP - just added award reference and their recent interview in Croatia (they have regional visibility). --Zblace (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Cordless Larry, I'll continue searching! -Martha (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage over the past several years on the band from both Serbian news sources and more international ones like the Associated Press and DW. Silver seren^C 22:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of indepth coverage in multiple languages. -Yupik (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to satisfy all GNG criteria. Mjh2016 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extended detailed references provide strong evidence for notability. As far as I know, the fact that the references are largely non-English is not relevant. Finney1234 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per available coverage from reliable media sources. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gopher (protocol). ✗plicit 10:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopher+[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I could not find enough reliable sources on Gopher+, probably because it "was never widely adopted by Gopher servers" as lead suggests. Dreamyshade attempted to improve this article after I WP:PRODed it, but Dreamyshade only found two emails in a public mailing list which mention Gopher+. Neither email is-indepth (only couple sentences about Gopher+). Neither email is independent, because they are written by people connected with Gopher+ who are just chatting about Gopher like on a forum or IRC. Therefore I believe there is no single WP:RS which would count towards notability. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Dreamyshade: you might be interested in this discussion.

Merge as proposed into Gopher (protocol) or delete if nobody else thinks it is worth a merge. Clearly not notable enough for its own article. W Nowicki (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Content seems relevant, but tweet-long. Should also have more inline citations for the features. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Sources found include an Ars Technical article and a chapter in the 1995 book Internet Publishing Handbook. There isn't a lot of depth to the coverage, but there is basic verifiability of Gopher+'s existence, it's implementation in Gopher servers, and its role in Gopher history. Because Gopher+ is almost always discussed in the Gopher context, a selective merge to Gopher (protocol) makes good sense. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 21:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes, I looked at this and tagged it for merge into Gopher (protocol) - it's valid information with adequate sourcing available for verifiability, but not enough for its own article. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrow[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, likely covert advertising. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles. fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH GermanKity (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reef triggerfish. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 07:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humuhumu nukunuku apua'a[edit]

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

WP:2DAB, and it erroneously uses an apostrophe instead of an ʻokina. dudhhr_Contribs 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 08:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This dab is orphaned and the correct term (humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa) redirects to Reef triggerfish. dudhhr_Contribs 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reef triggerfish. Redirects are cheap. BD2412 T 17:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @BD2412: I should probably have just boldly redirected it myself. dudhhr_Contribs 07:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reef triggerfish, the target of Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa and many similar redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reef triggerfish. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chakir Hussain[edit]

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

Failing the notability criteria. Self promotion coverage on reliable sources. Multiple issues already mentioned on page. PangolinPedia 07:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 07:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia 07:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 08:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasyl Shevchenko (artist)[edit]

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

This bio was apparently cut and pasted from draftspace. I don’t think it passes WP:ARTIST (the article says that “ the creative activity during his lifetime did not bring the artist either fame or wealth”). I suggest this should be draftified if more sources exist that I have not found, or else deleted as non notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing good found in a search. This is pretty clearly a memorial page. Draft:Vasyl Shevchenko (artist) should also be deleted. (Side note: the other Vasyl Shevchenko is aslo poorly sourced.) --- Possibly ☎ 08:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom nothing good found in a search result. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fousey vs. Slim[edit]

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

Amateur boxing match between Youtubers does not meet WP:NEVENT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It does not meet the standard of a notable event. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage appears to be routine. It's nice it was for charity, but it was mainly for self-promotion. There's no way this has what WP:NEVENT refers to as "enduring historical significance". Papaursa (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event. Loquacious Folly (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and non-notable. Wario-Man ^talk 02:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Dev Yadav[edit]

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

Non-notable singer, fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Added sources are only announcements and WP:ROUTINE. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non notable singer. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 17:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @TheBirdsShedTears: I assume you mean it fails WP:GNG rather than WP:GEN? Laplorfill (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laplorfill, thanks for pointing this out. I have corrected typo. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this source looks okay but there's nothing else towards WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO as far as I can see Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheChronium 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polisen i Strömstad[edit]

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

Non-notable ROTM television series from Sweden; may be notable in the Swedish context, but no real reason to exist on enwiki as this appears not to have had international distribution. In any case, the article is virtually unreferenced, and a search finds nothing that would come close to sigcov (plenty of hits, yes, but they're from programme listings, retailers, etc., and some of actual police stories), hence fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related page on the same grounds:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per GNG, sources do not have to be written in English. If it is notable in Sweden per WP:GNG, then it is notable enough for inclusion here even if no one outside of Sweden has ever heard of it. However, I can't speak to whether it is notable in Sweden per WP:GNG; I don't speak Swedish. BilledMammal (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'm aware of notability requirements and non-English-language sources. My comment about lack of international distribution was meant (perhaps not very clearly) to make the point that while this may be a TV series that readers of the Swedish wiki will immediately recognise and presume notability (rightly or wrongly), that presumption does not apply on other language wikis. As for finding Swedish sources, I do speak Swedish, but could not find anything worth mentioning, although I did not go to any great efforts to search only in Swedish. More than happy for anyone to disprove my nom by providing sufficient sources, whether in English or på svenska. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this seems to be a clear case where there's issues with finding online sources due to digitization being incomplete further back, but it is *highly likely* that reliable sources exist offline for a nationally broadcast series of five seasons on the primary national public broadcaster. WP:NTV indicates this -- and yes, I know there are some issues with taking the presumed notability of this too far sometimes, but in this case, it seems likely to be true. matt91486 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you can argue that "there must be sources, even if we can't find any" (or something to that effect), because that could apply to most things and defeat the whole notability question. Also, the last season was first aired in 1996, and many newspaper etc. archives (at least in countries like Sweden) go back further than that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your point, but I disagree -- I think these are cases where the guidelines like NTV are most applicable. This was something broadcast on the biggest national public broadcaster over 15 years, and as you mention, is still quite frequently incidentally mentioned in passing quite later. This is one of the reasons we have a major chronological bias to coverage on Wikipedia. matt91486 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd just like to note that most accessible digital newspaper archives in Sweden are very bad at covering the 90s. There's a lot being digitalised by the Royal Library, but it's largely inaccessible to the public due to copyright. To access their collection I'd have to go to the university library in the neighbouring city, book an hour at their "newspaper computer" (one computer with access, at one of the largest universities in the country) and search there. /Julle (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very popular television series, leaving a far bigger footprint behind than most things being shown on television. I've added a few sources, using sv:Mediearkivet. /Julle (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheChronium 07:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. The sources provided in the article don't meet WP:SIRS and the article as written is too promotional for mainspace. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable organisation; simple searching reveals a multiplicity of RS. Current content is irrelevant in determining notability; AfD is not clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Care to link? Searched and couldn't find any that satisfied SIRS. I found a lot of single sentence mentions but these aren't "significant". Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 18:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Organisation is approaching 30 years of existence (first as Choice USA), a BEFORE process needs to take account of that history. Also, NB SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Price, Kimala (2010-03-01). "What is Reproductive Justice? How Women of Color Activists Are Redefining the Pro-Choice Paradigm". Meridians. 10 (2): 42–65. doi:10.2979/meridians.2010.10.2.42.
^ Stepp, Laura Sessions (2004-04-24). "For Abortion Rights, a Changing of the Guard". Washington Post.
^ "Respect Those Who Want to Keep Their Abortion Private". www.nytimes.com. June 30, 2013.
^ Jones, Walter C. (March 5, 2014). "Pro-choice students lobby against anti-abortion bill". www.onlineathens.com.

FWIW - searching newspapers.com with "Choice USA" + abortion (and country specific USA), I get 1,263 articles. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are brief mentions that fail WP:ORGDEPTH and the GNG does not apply to organizations. Organizations require significant coverage moreso than other topics to prevent spam (which this article seems like it may be). The first citation you've provided mentions Choice USA three times, briefly mentioning it as an "affiliated" group of Sister-Song (not significant coverage) and then briefly mentioning an educational event/program it sponsors as well as using it of an example of a pro-choice group that has adopted the phrasing of "reproductive justice". That is the extent of the coverage which fails WP:ORGDEPTH which notes that "sponsorship of events" or using an organization "as an example of a type of company or product being discussed" fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The WaPo article fails for the same reason, as it briefly mentions an event that Choice USA sponsored and an award it gave out.

The byline of the New York Times opinion piece you linked literally reads "Kierra Johnson is executive director of Choice USA". An opinion piece written by the executive director of the organization it is about clearly is not an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability. The fourth reference you linked from onlineathens (a local news site, note WP:AUD) doesn't actually cover Choice USA, it covers student activists and mentions briefly that the activists were a part of Choice USA as well as including a comment from Choice USA. There's no inherited notability here, the article has to actually cover the organization itself for the article to "count". There is no significant coverage of Choice USA itself in that article and it doesn't count either.

It also doesn't matter if there's 1263 articles that have the words "Choice USA" and "abortion" in them if none of them actually cover Choice USA in depth. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant and none of the sources you've provided meet SIRS. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please UCS: a near 30 year old organisation founded by leading US feminists, nationally recognised (that's the point of the NYT comment, it goes towards establishing notability because of its location), a presence on campuses across the USA, mobilising and organising in favour of reproductive rights, undertaking lobbying actions of legislatures. The smallest sampling of the 1200+ articles shows this to be the case. SIGCOV is not a cookie-cutter, it needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GNG does not apply to organizations ... This conflates the clear difference in the guidelines between NCORP and NONPROFIT, viz. the difference in treatment between commerically-oriented organisations and non-profit organisations Alternate criteria: Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements [...] the general notability guideline Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That section purportedly applies to all organizations, not just non profit ones. At AfD I have generally seen a consensus that GNG doesn't apply to organizations and that NORG takes precedence, or at least the idea that the rules around NORG are a "clarification" of the GNG meaning that the GNG can't take precedence over NORG given that NORG is just a more specific version of the GNG. I'm surprised it's still in the policy and hasn't been changed to update current practice.

The subsection on non profit entities loosen the guidelines to allow for primary or tertiary sources to be used to establish notability in addition to secondary ones so long as the organization is national or intl in scale. I don't really see how that has an impact on the sources you've provided here, given that they're all already secondary sources w/r/t URGE (except maybe the opinion piece given that it's written by the executive director of URGE?). Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article is clearly in bad shape, (mostly because of recent edits,) but it should be improved, not deleted. I found several sources from national ^[1] and regional ^[2] outlets that discuss the organizations work, and I'm sure I could find more with further digging through the "in the news" section of the organization's website. Niftysquirrel (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the article needs help, but per the sources others have listed above, it appears to meet notability guidelines. This is a case of an article seeming like it fails cause it's well, a mess, but is actually notable enough. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 07:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, there is a good amount of coverage available to pass WP:GNG, although article needs some improvements. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per available coverage in multiple reliable sources like [14] [15] [16], [17], [18], [19] etc. Although, article needs some improvements at the moment right now but present sources surely passes GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musei Vaticani (football club)[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vatican City Championship; no independent notability but possible search term. Very low level league here, made up of museum employees. Giant Snowman 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-even if there is a lack of sources in English, there is Italian coverage. Also the article meets notability requirements for football clubs which state “Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.” This club plays in the country’s top tier cup and league annually.--Gri3720 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, but keep votes don't show GNG. Extending to allow time for presentation of sources claimed to exist. Editors are also reminded the WP:FOOTYN, which appears to be alluded to here, is not a guideline but an essay based on local consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-There was not "more thorough discussion" because the majority of voters voted to keep and gave their reason why but no one who voted "delete" or "merge" responded to further the discussion. I feel that this re-nomination for deletion may be fueled by religious bias. Fenix down you have created articles for DOZENS of clubs that do not have any references other than the RSSSF. The other article you nominated for deletion FC Guardia closed as keep. There's no reason this one shouldn't be the same. The club plays in the top tier cup/league in a sovereign nation which GENERALLY qualifies them for GNG. Perhaps you are not proficient in Italian. Example sources are below. --Gri3720 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gri3720: you can't vote "keep" twice. Please change your post to "Comment" instead of "keep". REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @REDMAN 2019:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG based on Italian sources. It should also be noted that WP:FOOTY has been depreciated and now are guidelines, not policy. BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why the reslists. It's clearly a keep from the comments and references provided, to the point there's little point commenting. Perhaps User:GiantSnowman can revisit his redirect to start the snow. Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per available coverage in news websites. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Finch14 (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Majmudar[edit]

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

Subject is not a notable person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). See: People notable for only one event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markraby (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is the poet laureate of Ohio, which should fulfill criterion 1 of WP:AUTHOR "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." His writings have also been published in several legitimate poetry journals and have been reviewed by several credible sources like NPR and The New York Times so he should also meet the GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qwaiiplayer Nexus000 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Qwaiiplayer rationale. Meets WP:AUTHOR. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Ragaini[edit]

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

Sources were added following PROD, but they are not of the depth required to meet WP:BIO. This one is probably the best, but it just speaks to his founding role with the company, not notability. Of the rest, we have mention of his name in a credit (same here), a comment from him (which is where the notability claim stems from, but it's his own opinion], and a blog post that he wrote. He does not appear to be a notable game designer, and I can't think of any other standard he'd reach Star Mississippi 23:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying IP 96's keep vote, which you can see here. Don't want it to get missed if folks don't check talk Star Mississippi 01:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC) : Both Asheron's Call and The Matrix Online are considered notable games. Asheron's Call won an AIAS award (https://www.interactive.org/awards/award_category_details.asp?idAward=2000&idGameAwardType=15). Surely the lead designer of these game titles is notable enough for the page to exist[reply]
keep is also my vote. Asheron's Call and The Matrix Online were both really important games when they came out, so it seems reasonable that the designer of both of these games is also notable. Benplowman (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Star Mississippi. Also here are two additional interviews which better establish notability:

96.230.227.225 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry but this isn't even close to meeting WP:GNG. The sources provided here and in the article are about the games Ragaini worked on, not Ragaini himself. With video game biographies, we typically want interviews and articles focused on the person not the games. His name is not even mentioned in the article titles, it's just "Asheron's Call creator" or whatever. MobyGames is unreliable. The other sources in the article only contain brief name mentions and not the quality coverage we need for GNG. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarkus here-- I searched for other notable mentions as well and found nothing that addresses the comment Tarkus made here. Nomader (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing the coverage to show that the subject itself is independently notable. (Note that interviews are primarily first party accounts, not the third party coverage we look for to meet the GNG.) The above keep !votes violate WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My apologies, but I don't edit wikipedia, so I am not familiar with how article deletion comments usually work. I'd like to add my perspective as a fan of Asheron's Call (AC). AC was one of the original big 3 MMOs, and while not a huge commercial success, it was not a failure either, staying in operation from 1999 to 2017. When comparing AC's coverage to one of its rivals, EverQuest, there are articles for some of that game's developers such as Brad McQuaid and John Smedley. There are other examples of articles about game developers, but EverQuest seems to be the best direct comparison. Both articles about the two Everquest developers focus on their work on video games, with little to no information about the person themselves. The article about Toby Ragaini is a stub, but if it were fleshed out I would imagine it would be similar to the other two developer articles I mentioned. My comment is, if those other two game developers meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, then Toby probably does too. And if Toby does not, I'd think the same would be true for many other game developer articles. I do not know enough about the notability policy to know how it should be applied here, but I would hope it is applied fairly. --AnAdventurerAC (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably the opposite - the sourcing on those articles aren't very good either. I havent looked around to see if there's more sourcing out there, but if that's all there is, I would think McQuaid and Smedley would be in danger of deletion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom's rationale is quite clear, and I could find no significant coverage to counter it. PK650 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Uganda[edit]

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

Road signs in Uganda

This article has no sources. It is an image gallery rather than an encyclopedic article; see Wikipedia is not a gallery.

A copy of this article was created in article space, and was moved to draft space by User:Asukite, but this copy has been created in article space again, so that a second draftification is not possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per nom. un-Referenced article in-fact i should say a gallery does not fulfill wiki Guidelines. GermanKity (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think speedy delete applies here (although WP:A3 is close). Mlb96 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the source already. Kingwarnen (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingwarnen, I see the PDF uploaded to pdfcoffee.com, which looks like a user hosting site. While I applaud your use of a public domain attribution, something we don't always see here, the source in question being hosted on a user-uploaded site calls it into question, and although it is government-published, it doesn't really address the main issue with the article: it's still pretty much just a gallery, with no in-depth encyclopedic content. The policy that Robert McClenon cited (WP:NOTGALLERY) would strike me personally as the most convincing argument for deletion in this discussion. I know I linked Road signs in India as an example, which bears striking similarity to this article, but does at least have a bit more descriptive coverage, if it is a bit lacking (and may have avoided being nominated for deletion so far because it's been around much longer) A S U K I T E 23:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my message above - if we could expand the text content in this article to alleviate the gallery issue, and add some more sources, I might change my mind, if anything because Road signs in India still exists. A S U K I T E 23:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTGALLERY Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BBC Radio 4 Extra#Programming. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 07:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change at Oglethorpe[edit]

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

While the original air date could be problematic for online sourcing, the rebroadcast should have generated something. Alas, all I am able to find outside of the BBC listings is this, which is a directory and I'm not sure is a reliable source. 6 episodes only, does not appear to have been a notable program/programme Star Mississippi 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show) Star Mississippi 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BBC Radio 4 Extra#Programming. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BBC Radio 4 Extra#Programming per above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BBC Radio 4 programmes. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 06:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case Notes (radio show)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There are some trivial mentions in a few sources, and there appears to be a couple of Google Scholar articles that from what I can tell mostly mention the podcast in passing. I don't think there are enough sources with more than a trivial mention that demonstrate significant coverage. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gave this a search and didn't see anything that would satisfy notability. It's got some mentions and it looks like it's mostly talked about in journals. There's also apparently another show with the same name on true crime. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no news coverage available to satisfy GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RPRGM, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." The BBC broadcasts this on its national network and the programme is long-standing, having been broadcast for over twenty years. And there is naturally regular coverage in medical journals such as the BMJ and Nursing Standard. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPRGM also says "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." and so far no one has linked to reliable sources that would demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BBC Radio 4 programmes. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of BBC Radio 4 programmes per above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Tanguy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gilles Tanguy

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

He never was the manager of Marseille (between 1929 and 1932, it was Paul Seitz, Peter Farmer and Charlie Bell [20] ; [21] Rashinseita (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like a hoax. The article creator was indeffed soon after this page was made (both in 2010). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not speedy-delete. ((Olympique de Marseille managers)) had the name since 2007, so it probably was based on a hoax (or misinformation) on a defunct fan site. I can't find any sign a person of this name existed, and the current official site for the football club says he was never the manager. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, if he's not a hoax. Giant Snowman 08:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he wasn't OM manager then, and he doesn't look to pass WP:GNG (as it's not even clear what he did actually do). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sole claim to notability has turned out to be completely false Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails verification.--Mvqr (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG.Iamfarzan (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TheChronium 06:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxeneers or the Lion Sleeps When Its Antelope Go Home[edit]

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

The Allmusic blurb is even more perfunctory than most of their blurbs. It's literally a single sentence by a user, not staff. The Pitchfork review is also by a contributor, not staff, and no way to tell if there is editorial oversight of that. The third review is a dead link, but from a site which does not appear to have editorial oversight. Searches turned up zilch. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There being a metacritic score should be almost an automatic criteria that it's received enough coverage to meet notability requirements. Allmusic lists their rating without a blurb; they do that semi-frequently. All of these sources are discussed under WP:A/S and listed as permissible.RF23 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but it's not. And since that's your only argument, still fails NALBUMS and GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that there are 5 sources that are accepted notable sources per WP:A/S. These reviews clear criteria 1 of WP:NALBUMS.RF23 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Discussed in several papers, including The Washington Post, The Morning Call, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Daily Herald, Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, Sunday Herald-Sun, among others. Some reviews/articles are longer than others, and some seem to be in conjunction with tour coverage, but they're major dailies across the US and Australia. I agree with Onel that it's not great for an album article to have only box ratings, without production and critical reception prose, but this seems to have been reviewed widely. I think the Pitchfork review is ok--it's still subject to their editorial policies and oversight, unlike the user submissions at Sputnikmusic and Punknews.org? Maybe another editor will weigh in. I'm no longer sure of the status of AbsolutePunk... Caro7200 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Sputnik and Punknews reviews are staff reviews; allowed under WP:A/S.RF23 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know the two in this article are--my meaning was that I think all Pitchfork reviews are edited, and that Pitchfork does not rely on unedited user submissions. Caro7200 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per RF's and Caro's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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