< April 16	April 18 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems to be a consensus that following WP:DAB to the letter would be "unacceptably astonishing" and that the current state of this page is the one which improves the encyclopedia the most (by being the most helpful to readers). (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live performance[edit]

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

Not a true disambiguation page per MOS:DAB. The only subject on this page that could be considered a title match is Live Performance. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Theatre, and Disambiguations. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a case where the topic with caps (the album Live Performance) is probably not primary topic for the uncapped "Live performance". Perhaps the "least worst" option would be a reduced version of this dab page, offering 2 entries: the album, and a link to Performance in an entry worded something like "A performance taking place in real time, as contrasted to a recorded performance". Slightly IAR but more helpful to the reader than other options. Or just leave it as is, pretty harmless. PamD 09:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @PamD: I had originally gone into this thinking the disambiguation page would have to be deleted (or probably redirected), but with you saying this, I'm thinking this title could be replaced with a broad-concept article, maybe? Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is basically a page that would be a redirect if not for having more than one possible target. I could see people typing this in, so deleting it would inconvenience people. If this was at RFD instead of AFD, I don't think anyone would !vote "delete". HotdogPi 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although this may not meet some WP:DAB policy, deletion or redirecting to Live Performance would be unacceptably WP:ASTONISHING. Let's find a way to improve this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep although moving to Draftspace is an option. It may be slightly pre-mature but this option keeps edit history on the article intact. Tawker (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Maltese Premier League[edit]

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

No references _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Malta. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as not ready for mainspace yet, but will be in future as event comes closer. Giant Snowman 19:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Early, but this article is needed. What's the point in sending it to draft to be reformed. Govvy (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as it's way too soon, and there's no beneficial information in the article- the start and end dates for the season haven't even been announced yet. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. The creator should perhaps have waited another few weeks but, now it's here and will certainly be needed, let's allow it to develop. With any upcoming league season, relevant events can occur or take shape several months ahead of the first match. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't delete articles because they have no references, we delete articles if they can't possibly be referenced. Bad nom. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until it can be sourced. Alvaldi (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify as this is a notable event which bar some sort of freak event will definitely occur, and because "no references" is not a valid rationale for deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BEFORE failure. Add some references. Nfitz (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - improve article in draftspace and move to namespace when appropriate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lineup for next season is now known. No point in deleting it now only to recreate in a few weeks. Number 5 7 09:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Number 57. It's going to be created again if it gets deleted, so I don't see why you would. --SimmeD (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Roshko Holdings Company[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:N. Several refs are just to a Barnes and Noble page selling books purportedly referencing topic. Two links about the companies holdings are dead, the Wall Street Journal article is a 404 dead link, looked at the US Treasury report cited and couldn't find the mentions of this company, and other refs are Linkden pages, Manta pages, and an Avvo page. Google search didn't turn up any notable hits for me. Thank you for your comments. TeaEarlGreyVeryHot (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TeaEarlGreyVeryHot (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the material is verifiable, except for the Jersey Shore rental homes, which does not confer notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G5. Favonian (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Turkestan[edit]

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

Invalid disambiguation page; assortment of topics not collected under the same title. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Central Asia, and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an invalid disambig page. I'm also amazed that a 37 word disambiguation page also manages to squeeze in some POV as well, with the inclusion of "the Ottoman Caliphate". Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- none of what is listed actually refers to Turkestan: most of it relates to Turkey. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted at AfD in 2018, and there is nothing in the article or elsewhere to suggest that the subject is more notable now. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Women, and Ontario. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. No increase in notability seen since last AfD. There is another Jan Allen, a solid state chemist who could well be notable, but it is not this person. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Change vote because of arguments produced. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Because:

In 2019 she was awarded the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts Medal, an award that only one person gets per year. 1
Also in 2019 she was given a lifetime achievement award from Galeries Ontario / Ontario Galleries 2

I think (but tell me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure of how important these awards are) that therefore she passes WP:ANYBIO. CT55555 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO as she has "received a well-known and significant award or honor" since the last AfD. pburka (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What has changed since the AfD in 2018 is that she received two significant awards as stated above: in 2019 she was the sole recipient of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts Medal, and a lifetime achievement award from Galeries Ontario / Ontario Galleries. She clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. The article should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added information from a source via the Wikipedia Library with in-depth biographical information, and between the awards and reviews cited in the article, it appears that per WP:CREATIVE, she is regarded as an important figure and has won significant critical attention. Beccaynr (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the information CT55555 and Beccanyr added, I think the question we ought to ask is why we deleted a page about a notable artist in 2018. This seems like a (less prominent) case of what happened to Donna Strickland. pburka (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, my main argument to keep is based on two 2019 awards.

On the other, while about 19% of biographical articles on Wikipedia are about women, 41% of biographical articles nominated for deletion are about women, so something is causing editors, on average, to disproportionately nominate women's biographies for deletion. I'm not saying this nomination was a problem, the 2019 stuff wasn't in there at the time of nomination. Sources: Gender bias on Wikipedia

If anyone find the status quo problematic, please do join us at Women in Red and/or join in by creating high quality articles about women (there are helpful lists in the project) or copy my new hobby of scanning articles for deletion for biographical articles and doing some sort of WP:BEFORE+++ kind of work, and help close the gender gap. CT55555 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2018 discussion only saw three editors, one of whom was anonymous, supporting deletion, including the nominator. Nobody uncovered her 2002 Exhibition of the Year award, and, despite unclear consensus, the discussion wasn't even relisted once. pburka (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I nominated this on 17 April 2022, there was nothing in the article about these 2019 awards. However, if either really is "well-known and significant", why is there no mention of them in Royal Canadian Academy of Arts or Galeries Ontario / Ontario Galleries respectively? Furthermore, the only source for this medal is the organisation she is the director of. As for the lifetime achievement award, this is mentioned in a podcast interview with her - hardly a reliable source. And the comparison to Donna Strickland is a false equivalence. Edwardx (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of other places that mention her lifetime achievement award:
To answer your question, I attribute the lack of mention of the awards on the articles you mention to a lack of editors taking an interests in museums and galleries, if my time at AfD is anything to go by, there seems to be more interest in pop music and video games than galleries, but I'm deep into speculation. To try to remain more objective, there's lots of important things missing from Wikipedia, I don't think we should assume something is not important just because it doesn't exist here, also any one of us could add it in quickly right now and I don't think that would make it suddenly more important. CT55555 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the awards found confirming she is a notable artist. Dream Focus 05:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I find most convincing the Royal Canadian Art medal, although the sourcing for this is not completely independent, and I didn't find anything better. (Comment that the RCA webpage is a bit of a mess!) Hence, "weak". But the Ontario Galleries lifetime achievement is nearly at the same level (if a bit more local), and there seems to be plenty of sourcing for that award. Here is another mention of the lifetime achievement award [1]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may have been too soon in 2018, but the awards since her retirement are significant. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her winning a major award in her field. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was WP:TOOSOON when it was deleted originally. Now that the person meets WP:ANYBIO I see no reason to delete it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Abdul[edit]

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

non-notable rapper/producer, nothing short of vanity spam here. CUPIDICAE💕 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rapper/Producer is notable there's an article in a magazine

about him Abdulisthatyou (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blatantly fails WP:NMUSIC. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you need to come up with a reason Abdulisthatyou (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with the nominator's a pretty valid reason but sure, I've fleshed it out for you. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 02:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN and also fails WP:NBASIC by quite some way. Not even one reliable, independent source located. All references are to self-published sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone move the article to draft space Abdulisthatyou (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because then we'll go through this in a few more weeks when you edit war it into mainspace again. We don't hold non-notable vanity spam in draft space in hopes that someone will become notable. CUPIDICAE💕 17:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

okay i get your point Abdulisthatyou (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. fails WP:GNG based on current state. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and the comments above. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non notable vanity article. KylieTastic (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Canada[edit]

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

Very similar to the article deleted in 2020 via PROD, if memory serves me. Still no evidence of meeting WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a statistics database and shouldn't be used for indiscriminate listings of results between all rugby nations unless there are specific sources showing why the meetings between these two particular nations are of importance; see WP:NOTSTATS. There is nothing to suggest that the 'rivalry' between Ireland and Canada in rugby is important enough for its own encyclopaedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Lists, Ireland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per NSPORT, Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, It was likely I who PRODed the 2020 article as it failed WP:NOTSTATS AND WP:NRIVALRY. There is no significant coverage of matches between Ireland and Canada being a rivalry, they're just a selection of international tests, and so this is just a list statistics with no real significants. Could potentially be SALTed as I'm not sure a rivalry will ever develop in these matches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom but there are several more similar list type pages that should also be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basic list of matches, fails WP:NOTSTATS.--Bcp67 (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Of course, if that source is found, the redirect to List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi can be created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wajihullah[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. The sources, mostly published by local mosques and madrassahs, are not reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support a Redirect to List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi provided that a source verifying this is provided. When I was working on Mahmud Hasan Deobandi to make it a GA, I didn't find Wajihullah's name in any primary/secondary Urdu sources, the main language associated with Mahmud Hasan Deobandi. I'm inclined to delete otherwise. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 15:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The sources are week and do not establish notability. Nothing remarkable found when looking for sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not Notable passes GNG. And according to google search, Mahmud Hasan Deobandi was the first student of Darul Uloom Deoband. Ref. Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 19:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that our subject was the first student from Sandwip to study in DUD. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TrangaBellam, the article cites a source but it is in Bengali which I don't know. Did Wajihullah exactly study with Mahmud Hasan Deobandi at Deoband? In that case, redirecting this article to List of students of Mahmud Hasan Deobandi is the best option, imho. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huron Valley Lutheran High School[edit]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools.. must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both" This article fails to do so. Was prodded in January but removed on the grounds that it's a secondary school. AusLondonder (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only sources on article are secondary but not independent statistics typically found on every US high school article. BEFORE only turned up MILL coverage of athletics and typical transactional reports and directories. Fails both GNG and ORG. 174.212.227.192 (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the IP. Schools with less than 100 students are almost never notable.Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Afroman discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4R0:20[edit]

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

Notability has been disputed repeatedly (see history). It does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afroman discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Bengali[edit]

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

Fails WP:N with no significant coverage of the figure in any reliable source. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SalamAlayka is canvassing on the Bengali wikipedia for the keep vote.—Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BEFORE (books) returns mentions; other references cited do not return any information at all. Insufficient notablity - fails WP:GNG --Whiteguru (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titilola Obilade[edit]

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

I don't see how any of this passes WP:NPROF. All sources are primary, lots of her research is published in predatory journals. Both her books are self-published. Her "firsts" are incredibly specifics "The first X from Y's Z department to become a subtype of B". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, noting that the article was created by an editor, User:Healthandhope who has edited on no other topic and was later updated by very-similarly-named User:Healthhopes in their only edit, suggesting possible COI or autobio. Her personal website seems to exist solely to promote her two books. Does not appear to be notable. PamD 09:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not notable. A handful of citations doesn't suffice for an WP:NPROF crit. 1 pass, and none of the other NPROF criteria seem to be met. Unsurprisingly, her self-published books haven't attracted the critical attention needed to meet WP:NAUTHOR. My search found zero significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so she's not notable under the GNG/WP:BASIC either. I don't doubt that Obilade is a talented scholar, but nonetheless she doesn't seem to meet any of our notability guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of airports in New Jersey. The arguments that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability seem more persuasive; and the redirect seems like a valid alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pemberton Airport[edit]

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

This private airport has no evidence of notability. Most of my searches turned up an airport of the same name in Canada. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAIRPORT which states "Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist" AusLondonder (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment haven't looked myself to determine notability, but if not kept, should Redirect to List of airports in New Jersey. MB 03:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (some info) to List of airports in New Jersey. Djflem (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Likely to meet WP:GNG. The airport has operated since 1951, and operated as a public access airport until 2006. In the period of June 1997 to June 1998, the airport had 12,000 takeoffs and landings, with facilities onsite to perform major airframe and engine repairs. This isn't a dirt strip in some farmer's field. Using Newspapers.com is of limited use in this case because the site doesn't carry any local newspapers, but still turns up other mentions in the state newspapers. The airport was the site of a fatal light plane crash in 1995, as the pilot was attempting to land. [2] [3] It was the site of another non-fatal crash in 2004 of an antique plane,[4][5][6] and an ultralight plane in 2016.[7] In another case in 1957, a man was killed at the airport by the propeller of a plane on the ground at the airport.[8][9] Using only the online sources available to me, I turned up enough mentions of the airport in a few minutes of searching to find enough to justify de-prodding the article, and subsequently voicing a keep opinion here on "likely" GNG grounds. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those mentions seem to be addressing the airport specifically, rather are routine local news about incidents. I don't see those mentions as meeting the criteria at NAIRPORT: "Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist." AusLondonder (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources and arguments by RecycledPixels. Alansohn (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indepth sourcing that would meet the level of GNG has been provided. Incidental mentions to not make a thing notable. Airports probably should pass our inclusion guidelines for organizations, and this clearly does not meet those standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? When a clear Wikipedia:ATD is Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and Wikipedia:R? Airports are geographical features. Djflem (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airports in New Jersey. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Political posturing. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandstanding[edit]

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

Hard to see how this could ever become anything more than a WP:DICTDEF -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with FormalDude's merge/redirect suggestion. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge+redirect somewhere else - I split this off of grandstand before expanding it beyond a definition; based on the tags, it seems editors agreed that it did not belong there. If there's a parent concept, I'm open to merging into it, but I'm not sure what that would be. It's already a bit more than a definition, as it's summarizing various types. It's possible this could expand considerably by covering why psychologists think this happens, what the effects good and bad are, and how various forums try to prevent it to get more substantive conversations, or encourage it for other reasons. Political grandstanding does this for that type. -- Beland (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Political posturing: I'm not seeing sources that distinguish it from this topic. ––FormalDude talk 19:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wikt:grandstanding, which is where to find an actual dictionary definition.

As for the notability of the word "grandstanding": looking this word up on Google Scholar or the WP refs engine brings up pages and pages of... well, pages that mention the concept of grandstanding, though I doubt that few of them are actually about the word "grandstanding", raising questions of notability. (Searching for "grandstanding is" in the WP refs engine seems to give marginally better results, though still not good enough ones to assuage our notability worries fully. However, checking out the second page of search results brings up an entire book!)

Redirecting this to Political posturing or Political grandstanding would unduly emphasize the political aspects of grandstanding; ordinary people can grandstand too. (By the way, redirecting Grandstanding to Political grandstanding would make the former into an exciting double redirect, as the latter itself redirects to Political posturing.)

Duckmather (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Political posturing would be the best solution, because posturing and grandstanding contain significant overlap. In fact, they are practically one and the same. TH1980 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adryan Fitra Azyus[edit]

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

Non-notable marketer. Coverage is weak. Fails WP:GNG. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BEFORE search turns up no sustainable coverage, the last news piece is just he is acting as a speaker at some event, which is not notable. Per WP:ANYBIO, I don't see anything that is satisfied by him. His achievements of being on the social media team for Barack Obama and Joko Widodo are not notable. There are two sources that provide in-depth information about him, from this blog and this media. Both are interviews, and all of the claims are made by him are without verification at all, which in my opinion, failing WP:V. The first source from bisnisdavit.com also does not qualify for WP:RS. SunDawn talk 04:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill seo consultant. 85.211.128.50 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been expanded since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Everitt[edit]

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

Article is completely empty. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~~~. Normally an empty article would be up for speedy delete per WP:A3, but this is only empty due to vandalism. However, even before vandalism it was just one sentence, flirting with WP:NOTDIRECTORY.~~ Sakkura (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Now has actual content (notability wasn't an issue). Sakkura (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow of the British Academy is a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and it comes with a published 18-page biography of giving us plenty of material with which to expand the article. Quick searches of Google Scholar and JSTOR show huge numbers of reviews of his books (the JSTOR search for his name in a review came back with 150 hits), showing also a pass of WP:AUTHOR and many more sources to use to expand our article with content about those books. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is high praise for the subject from the British Academy, the Guardian, and the University of Leicester: (1) (2), (3). This could be a decent sized article based on those sources alone. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stand corrected 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Keep for the reasons stated above however, I think that I need to point out that, currently, except for the commas I just added, this article is an exact duplicate of a page on everybodywiki named Alan Everitt, right down to the citations. I would post a link but, Wikipedia has blacklisted that site and I don't think we need to ask for an exception for this. I found that page with a simple google search. Of course when dealing with biographical facts, it's pretty much impossible to avoid duplication but . . . Delta30061972 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Edit - The internet is replete with duplications of Wikipedia articles. I have no idea which came first in this case or if it is the same author putting his/her work in multiple places. Simply pointing this out.[reply]
- Usually, the page will exist on Wikipedia first and reappear on facsimiles like Everipedia (or however it is called now) within a month or so. The text will be almost identical to whenever the last crawl was. NiklausGerard (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, I'm new here. I figured that might be the case. Delta30061972 (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You’re welcome, thanks for weighing in! Keep up the good work. NiklausGerard (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With three highly-credible sources delving in-depth, subject meets WP:GNG. NiklausGerard (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significantly improved since nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF #5 as holder of a named chair at a major university. Plus clear consensus that obituaries in The Times and The Guardian are sufficient to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep -- He held named chair as head of the leading department in English Local History. Clearly notable, even if the present article is somewhat slender in it coverage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Brunch[edit]

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

Draftify, too soon for mainspace article and only one sentence Indagate (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep This isn't even a cogent AFD nomination. Variety, Variety, Mashed, Deadline, Out Magazine and that's just the first 5 results from a generic google search. CUPIDICAE💕 13:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: stub creator). Topic notable and article will just be recreated if deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is draftify/delete/etc then if someone recreates it without it airing etc then can be reverted and directed to this Indagate (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War (novel)[edit]

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

Page primarily serves to promote self-published books given 'Chilton Designs Publishers' only lists books written by the author in its catalogue, potentially suggesting it is author-owned vanity publishing company to add faux credibility. Novel failed to win any awards, was only nominated - false equivalence fallacy. Review sources are also unverifiable which has been a common trend with Coleman's unaudited pages. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War, the film adaptation of the book, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternative to deletion. The only significant coverage about the book I could find is this 110-word review:
1. Strange, Rosemary (April 2003). "Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War". Nursing Older People. 15 (2): 36. doi:10.7748/nop.15.2.36.s19. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "I started to read Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War and felt amused, surprised and then indignant. It is an extremely compelling book."
There are a large number of reviews listed under Mrs Caldicot's Cabbage War on the author's website^{Internet Archive}. But it is unclear whether these sources are about the film adaptation of the book and how many provide significant coverage about the book itself.
Like the AfD nominator, I did not find the review sources cited in the Wikipedia article in my searches for sources so was unable to verify them. If any editor finds significant coverage in two or more reliable sources about the book, I will switch to supporting retention.
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to acknowledge that the author is a conspiracy theorist who has a long, proven history of making false claims. I would thus be wary of taking his personal website reviews as being genuine.MrEarlGray (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I did not verify the sources he provided on his website so for the purposes of AfD and verifiability am treating them as if they did not exist. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Style (Dance)[edit]

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

terrible arranging, spamming link. Delete and rebuild PAVLOV (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. PAVLOV (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did some formating. Should look better now. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 22:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be merged with the article Dance. Helloheart (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a non-notable style, created by an SPA for one of their other paid articles. There's no meaningful coverage, so isn't notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to lack of participation. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Merlino[edit]

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

Most cited sources are non-independent. VentureBeat has only a passing mention. It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is a biography of the co-creator of Apache Druid, a technology widely-used by thousands of organizations, including Wikimedia's Wikistat project. This seems to qualify under WP:AUTHOR: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" There are multiple sources cited for this article. alumnius.net, apache.org, and datascienceassn.org are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While they are not secondary sources, they seem to fall under the guidelines for inclusion in WP:PRIMARY. I've added an additional paragraph, with a source of an independent reporting source, SF Scala. Briskmad (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Apache Foundation is not an independent source when considering notability of its projects or its committers. Yes, you can use it in the article, but it doesn't count for notability. I don't think software developers generally fall within the intended scope of WP:AUTHOR, but assuming they do, not every software product can be considered a significant new concept, theory, or technique (as much as I appreciate Apache Druid). In the field of computer science, that would be something like Relational algebra, Discrete Fourier transform, or MapReduce. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks to Alienautic for adding to the article during the AFD. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoo (parody band)[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article with the reason, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICBIO. It was opposed by the article's author, with the reason " I think that the band's notability is established by the fact that they were the first Beatles tribute band albet in a parodic guise." Notability is not inherited, so I do not believe this argument constitutes notability. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment a possible source? [10] Artw (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have an entry in the Dizionario della canzone italiana (Dictionary of Italian Song) by Gino Castaldo. I added the book in the Bibliography section.--Alienautic (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem to be notable in Italy, even if they're not well-known internationally. Notability in one country is enough to justify keeping the article.JMB1980 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some coverage from La Repubblica [11] and Corriere del Mezzogiorno [12]. The band is also discussed in a recent book by Renzo Arbore. Cavarrone 21:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any Italian-speaking editor willing to put the time in to write prose from these sources?^{Not a rhetorical question, if there are any, please do.} I agree the article is probably notable from these sources, but the sources aren't going to add themselves, and as it stands, the article will continue being an WP:OR unreferenced mess after the AfD. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 15:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buchalter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

entirely based on press release and minor notices. The lawyers in the firm who are notable are notable because of their non-legal careers. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like it was previously deleted at an AfD nearly 5 years ago and recreated around 2 years later. I can't see whether this is significantly different (or better) than the previous version but I can't see much in the way of notability being determined. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Privacy[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines - most of the sourcing is about underlying technologies rather than the product itself. firefly ( t · c ) 06:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 06:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Firefly, thank you for your feedback. I have made some adjustment to the article in respect to your feedback.

Furthermore, I seek your guidance on how to further improve the article. Niranaos (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from it not being at all obvious that this passes WP:GNG, the sourcing is atrocious, failing to hit WP:RS in many of the alleged references. I agree with the nom thatch of this is about the underlying tech rather that the topic itself. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An update has been done to the referencing. Kindly point out which section or part of the article you think is not properly referenced. Niranaos (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any new comment or recommendation concerning this article? Niranaos (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The reliability of the sources has been successfully challenged.

(Note: at first attempt to close, I closed as keep by mistake; this was a mis-click.) Stifle (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ledger Investing[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sources cited are mostly primary, and the few secondary ones are press release regurgitations and routine business reporting. Search finds nothing of substance. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree here. I came here to this article to categorize it, and then I saw this and immediately clicked. Should have been a PROD (in my opinion) Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well I don't want to challenge anyone's decision but if WP:GNG is true then this is notable. After clicking on the news section of the tag itself, Google display full media coverage from independent reliable sources and I cited the most important one. Tifflove (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely understandable stance, from the article creator. Just to be clear, which is "the most important one"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL investment company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page definitely needs to be written as per wikipedia standards and not in bullet point resume / newsletter format. With the way it’s written, the page doesn’t focus on what sets it apart from being just another WP:ROTM company. However, as per reference 4, the company significantly reduced the industry standard securitization process from months into a few weeks. These points needs to reflect in the article in an encyclopedic manner. So, it’s definitely not just another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company, the page needs improvement though.

Techcrunch is WP:RS and gives good information about the company. The funding related sources also gives quite a lot of information about the company. Other sources included, are in accordance with WP:V and significant sources

1. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/10/05/635290.htm

2. https://www.reinsurancene.ws/ledger-investing-adds-ex-aig-ceo-peter-hancock-to-board/

3. https://www.theinsurer.com/news/ledger-placed-300mn-of-gross-premium-with-capital-markets-in-21/20182.article

4. https://www.artemis.bm/news/ledger-places-300m-of-premium-into-capital-markets-in-2021/

Happy to edit it if it stays.--Trolli Onida (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of references

1. This from Insurance Journal is a company announcement. It says it as the bottom of the article. It is a Primary Source so cannot be used to establish notability. Also fails WP:ORGIND.

2. This from Reinsurance News is entirely based on another company announcement (says it in the article) with all information being provided by the company and their execs. Here are several more articles covering the same announcement and they're all pretty much exactly the same. No "Independent Content", they all fail WP:ORGIND

3. This from The Insurer is based entirely on an "update" provided by the company (says it in the article), has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND

4. Finally, this from Artemis is largely the exact same article as this from the Insurer, same date, same quotes, different "authors". Again, based on an "update" provided by the company, the article rely entirely on the company and/or execs for all the information. Fails WP:ORGIND.

None of those references meet our guidelines for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply and not just GNG. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company.

Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable WP:RS and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. We need to evaluate each reference against WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. In short WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rhodie. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodie bar[edit]

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

Non-notable establishments that only have passing mentions in reliable sources. Rhodie covers anything about these establishments that appears to be notable. Looking through the various sources did not convince me this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a WP:DATABASE for any and all establishments. Desertambition (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect to Rhodie. Hard to find any sources, and personally never heard of this. Park3r (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rhodie, not finding the sort of coverage we would need for a stand-alone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information on the Rhodie article is sufficient enough. No need for a separate article. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Nielsen[edit]

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

Businessperson with no significant independent sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the business may be notable, he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcell Enyingi[edit]

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

Stats stub for a footballer with only one minute of football to his name. I searched in Google News which yielded two trivial mentions. A Hungarian source search yielded only stats database profile pages such as MLSZ and Soccerpunter which do not count as WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I also did a search but was unable to find anything other than database profiles. Alvaldi (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and one minute of play time is not an indication of notability.--Mvqr (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about non-notable footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Sofokleous (footballer, born 1997)[edit]

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

Similar case to Andreas Photiou. Played 23 mins in a league considered to be professional so only weakly met the former guideline of WP:NFOOTBALL. Following his one game, he completely disappeared. Hits in Google News and a Greek-language search all relate to AEL Limassol's president Andreas Sofocleous instead of the subject of this article. No evidence that the 1997-born person of this name is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Also did a search but was unable to come up with anything substantial. Alvaldi (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oxford in popular culture[edit]

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

An even worse quality version of what we are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Cambridge in popular culture (with just three footnotes), and another article that totally misses the point of WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Which means what we have is yet another TVTrope-ish trivia laundry list of gems like "Clone High - includes the character of Doug Prepcourse, a trucker who says he was a Rhodes Scholar". Note that the single sentence referenced to Oxford in Fiction: an annotated bibliography does not need merging, as a), it already is mentioned in the low-quality mess at University_of_Oxford#Oxford_in_literature_and_other_media (sigh) and 2) it's unclear whether it is even related to University of Oxford, or just Oxford, the town (double sigh), so no, there's nothing to even merge this time. My BEFORE also did not suggest this is a notable topic, although I am a bit surprised about this (I thought there would be something); in either way, even if sources are found, WP:TNT applies as this would need a 100% rewrite. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Education, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The oldest university in England has featured often in popular culture. The article needs to be cleaned up a bit, but it should be retained. --Bduke (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm in two minds about this one. I agree that it's not very good, but I don't agree that it's worse than the Cambridge one. Many people will find it interesting and worthwhile. In the event that final decision is Keep The Oxford Murders needs to be in the literature section, and not just in the film section (I've read the book (not very good), but I haven't seen the film). Athel cb (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another poorly referenced list of largely non-notable trivia that fails WP:LISTN. The one sentence of information on the overall topic here that could be said to even be remotely reliable sourced ("By 1989, 533 novels based in Oxford had been identified and the number continues to rise.") is already included at the main University of Oxford#Oxford in literature and other media, thus leaving no reason for retention of this spinout. As a reminder, WP:ITSUSEFUL is generally not considered a valid argument for retention at AFD discussions, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the Cambridge one, this article is little more than a collection of trivia and original research. Furthermore, the article makes no attempt to provide criteria for inclusion. Instead, it simply gives a list of random works that might contain a reference to the University of Oxford. The importance of these references is not adequately described in the list. Honestly, this list is noticeably worse than the other lists in terms of sourcing. There are only three citations in the entire article. Each of these references corresponds to single sentences. Nothing else is cited. While there may be a workable topic here, this list needs to be destroyed so that something better can replace it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly trivial and unsourced. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly unsourced, which means this article fails core policies including WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. There are articles that discuss how a concept is portrayed in fiction, but that would require a new article with nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this one. Wikipedia isn't a database of primary sources, and articles are supposed to be formed around how secondary sources have treated the subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whilst some arguments about merging or redirecting have been made, I think the overall consensus trends to deletion. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domitia (sister of Longina)[edit]

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

WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Related to several notable people, but ultimately just a slot in a family tree. I don't recommend a redirect since the disambiguation makes this an impossible search term, and there are multiple relatives that this could be redirected to. Avilich (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and History. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again Avilich wastes everyones time by recreating an article that had already been redirected.★Trekker (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely search term due to disambiguation, and no appropriate target Avilich (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you could literally just have nominated the redirect for deletion instead if you think its somehow harmful (despite Wikipedia:REDIRECTSARECHEAP). Intead you insist on recreating the article and making an entirely new AFD page for no reason, just like with Claudia Dicaeosyna where in the AFD you actually eventually said you thought it was ok that the redirect existed..... Also there is nothing inacurate with the search term, and tere are TWO appropriate pages to redirect it to, she is mentioned in her fathers article to to direct it there is fine, or it could be redirected to her husbands article where she is also mentioned. ★Trekker (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prod was rejected, that is the reason. And exactly, there are multiple relatives, and thus no obvious target. Avilich (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What PROD? What does that have to do with deleting a redirect? Also, its complete nonsense to say someone can't be redirected if there are several relatives.★Trekker (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect somewhere. I would suggest her husband Annius Vinicianus (condemned by Nero) would be a suitable target. She did nothing notable in her own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles SHOULD NOT be recreated in order to delete them! After it was redirected, this should have been nominated for deletion/discussion at redirects for discussion. If one sincerely believed that the article should be recreated the recreation could be defended but the immediate AfD proves the nominator does not hold that belief. This AfD is part of the wider disruptive behavior of the nominator in the Roman subject matter. WP:WRONGFORUM applies. I will proceed to restore the redirect. A moderator should close this discussion on a technical basis and take whatever other steps are needed because the nominator was just banned for disrupting the Roman subject matter. gidonb (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does WRONGFORUM say about removed PRODs? The page was not previously removed by any formal procedure, and the bold-PROD and bold-redirect were both contested, so AfD is the natural place to go. Avilich (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page was redirected and should be restored only IF someone holds a genuine belief that the article should exist. Definitely NOT for forum shopping! gidonb (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only shopped in a single forum, so there's nothing irregular from that angle. Avilich (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have restored the article while this AFD goes on. While it may seem "disruptive" to restore an article just to AFD it, I can see where the nominator is coming from - if the page is simply redirected, that leaves the door open for someone to recreate it in the future with no consensus needed. However, if the page is deleted/redirected at AFD, it requires consensus to recreate which is more enforceable. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I do see how this AFD could have been held at a later date if the redirect was reverted by someone other than the nominator, but such is life. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, with all due respect this is a very bad call. The user is continuously disruptive in his behavior, rewarded by you, and should not be allowed to forum shop. I ask you to restore the redirect and close a discussion that belongs at WP:RFD. gidonb (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WRONGFORUM to complain about past blocks of mine Avilich (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, you can also ask the assistance from an admin who is better acquainted with the history of the nominator's behavior. Note that I do not have an opinion on whether a redirect should or should not exist, only address procedural wrongs. A little support would have been constructive. gidonb (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Procedural issues aside, this fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and any other criterion for notability. Mere existence is not enough. This is a genealogical placeholder, nothing more, and the namespace is not a natural search for which a redirect would serve any purpose. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect (i.e. keep at the correct version). We have procedures and these need to be followed. No awards should be given for forum shopping and disruptive behavior. Note that I propose a procedural keep, NOT a spite keep. The nominator is invited to make their case in the relevant forum! gidonb (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: merger is almost always the right solution when an apparently non-notable person could properly be discussed somewhere else—and it doesn't matter whether all of the useful content has already been added to other relevant articles, because merger is a process by which a) the article in question is reviewed to make sure that anything helpful to readers has been copied, b) the original authors still receive credit for their work, and c) the original title becomes a redirect for anyone who might come looking for it. Yes, there are cases where nobody is likely to search for something—but those are more the exception than the rule in cases like this, where the title is a logical one for an article about a historical person; and as correctly noted above, redirects are cheap. Yes, the article could be recreated in the future—but that would be the case whether or not the title is deleted, and the new article would still be subject to review for notability. Occasionally new information emerges that would justify an article about someone previously deemed non-notable; but if that's not the case, then returning the title to a redirect with appropriate explanation or discussion on the talk page of the article/redirect and/or the talk pages of the participating editors is fine. But the bottom line is, deletion is not a substitute for merger, and redirects don't need to be deleted unless there is no probability that anyone will search for them—if they're needed for another article, someone can simply redirect them there and leave hatnotes on appropriate pages. P Aculeius (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to give credit to every original author who merely restates a family tree in prose form and provides no reliable sources whatsoever. This is exactly the sort of thing that should not be merged. Avilich (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is an appropriate substitute for merger when there is nothing worth merging, and when the namespace that has been chosen for disambiguation purposes is inherently unnatural as a search term. Both appear to be the case here. Agricolae (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody seems to be seriously arguing that Domitia deserves a standalone article, so the question is whether she should be redirected or deleted. As far as I can make out, there are three possible targets for a redirect which mention Domitia (her husband, her father, and her sister). None discuss her in any detail, it is far from obvious which one she ought to be expected to redirect to, and I don't think "Domitia (sister of Longina)" is a particularly plausible search term. The redirect only existed for two months, so it's not as though it is a well-established redirect that we should preserve for that reason. And the argument that this should be procedurally closed because it should have been RfDed as a redirect seems like nonsense to me; maybe it should have been RfDed, but we're here now and closing this only to take it to RfD seems like unnecessary bureaucratic timewasting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that of recidivism and maintaining a fair playfield for everyone. I have submitted deletion requests to both procedures in the past. The likelihood of requests to be approved at the AfD is much higher. We should not allow disruptive behavior to happen time after time. User was just blocked indefinitely for a similar digression in the same subject area. The fact that this bad procedure has nevertheless been able to continue is (how do I put it gently?) remarkable. Fairness for fellow editors should always come before someone's content-based position. gidonb (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about fairness to fellow editors, we should probably talk about the fact that Avilich wasn't sanctioned for misusing deletion processes, they were sanctioned for personalising disputes, casting aspersions, editwarring, and inability to drop the stick. Their behaviour in this AfD has been perfectly fine, and as far as I can see they have avoided doing any of the things that they were recently sanctioned for. Sanctions are not a scarlet letter or a reason to oppose an editor's actions in a completely different dispute. I agree that Avilich should probably have RfDed this rather than AfDing it, but that's in no way comparable to the actually sanctionable behaviour that they were recently at ANI for.

As for I have submitted deletion requests to both procedures in the past. The likelihood of requests to be approved at the AfD is much higher. Your gut feeling is not useful data about this. Even if you are right that more stuff taken to AfD is deleted than stuff taken to RfD, that doesn't mean that it's because some of the stuff deleted at AfD should be kept. Personally my experience would be the opposite – RfDs are less likely to be closed as "keep" – but even assuming that you are right, there are a bunch of confounding variables (the one that springs to mind first is that RfD noms often don't argue for deletion in the first place; many discussions are held at RfD where the nominator explicitly proposes retargetting, whereas move and merge discussions are not held at AfD, even if those are possible outcomes). And even if you are right that more articles are deleted at AfD, and the effect is still measurable after controlling for confounding variables, my experience is that AfD has a much broader audience and more varied participants – which would suggest that to the extent there is a difference between the two, AfD is the one where the consensus is likely to be closer to that of the community more broadly. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons given in the nomination. Doesn't seem notable, no citations, no obvious place to direct to. CT55555 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect, as correctly stated above. There is useful content here that may or may not have been added to the articles on her father, a notable general, her sister, a Roman empress, or her husband, a notable general and conspirator. The lack of citations is irrelevant—we have sources and clear indications that this is not a hoax, and nobody has argued otherwise in this discussion. If all of the contents can be found in the articles about her notable father, sister, and husband, and is there cited to the sources mentioned under this title, then the title probably should redirect to one of them—likely her sister, since that's how the title defines her: "sister of Longina". That doesn't mean that's the only way someone might search for information about her, but anybody searching for this title is more likely to be thinking in those terms. That's it—merger complete; no need to do more. If the content and sources haven't been added to the three relevant articles, do that, and then redirect this title—and merger complete. It's that easy. As for the argument that the title should be deleted outright, it doesn't seem like an implausible search target—the subject should be mentioned in at least three articles about notable persons—and I know of a fourth that ought to do so—and someone might want to know if there's anything more to learn. Redirecting it would at least indicate where some of the relevant information can be found. Plus it would preserve the page history—at least twenty different editors, some regular members of WikiProject CGR, not including those using bots, have contributed to this article since its creation fifteen years ago. Redirects are cheap, and there's no disadvantage to keeping this one, since it's not needed for any other purpose. P Aculeius (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're covered already, there's no useful content here that doesn't exist elsewhere, and the article only cites unreliable sources anyway. If you insist on making a big deal out of some passing mentions in unreliable sources then I'll point out that neither of these sources seem to actually mention "Domitia" by name, so this can technically be classified as unverifiable/OR/hoax by your standards regardless of the likelihood that a person matching the description actually existed. If the name is not directly attested then it's unlikely someone will search for it before searching for the relatives. Avilich (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to argue that Tacitus and Suetonius are unreliable sources, then you might as well nominate all our Roman history articles for deletion—even modern writers base most of their writing on what Roman historians have to say. But that's not going to happen, so perhaps you should try another argument. The claim that the article is a "hoax" or "unverifiable" can be proved or disproved by checking to see if she's mentioned by Roman historians—even in passing. If she's mentioned—whether or not by name—then this article isn't a "hoax" or "unverifiable". Although as you know well, her name could probably be inferred from the fact that her father was Gaius Domitius Corbulo, and her sister Domitia Longina. Did you check other sources that are likely to mention her? I did, and found her listed as "Domitia" in PIR—with the notation that the sources don't name her (so her name is inferred). Tacitus, Annales, xv. 28 and Cassius Dio, lxii. 23 mention that Annius Vinicianus was Corbulo's son-in-law. She's also listed as "(Domitia)" No. 92 in PW. I'm sure there are other sources—likely Settipani, since Anriz based a lot of articles on his work, which is not technically unreliable or unverifiable, even though it may be very difficult to access and review.

WP:BEFORE expects you to check the sources mentioned in the article—and look for other sources (you can be excused not checking in sources that you can't readily access or review, if they're not cited by the article)—before nominating articles for deletion. Evidently that wasn't done here; it is not appropriate to nominate articles for deletion and then demand that other editors are responsible for doing this background work, or else the article will be deleted. That's the responsibility of the nominator. And we still come down to this: this is a plausible search term for someone who should be mentioned in three or four other articles—so it should at minimum be a redirect, perhaps to Longina, perhaps to Corbulo—but in either case, not deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient authors are not reliable sources, and any articles based on their testimony alone, without backing from secondary sources, shouldn't exist. All of the sources you mention contain zero biographical details on "Domitia", and anything that can be written about her – including the name, as the sources show – is artificial and worthless from an encyclopedic standpoint. There is no reason to think anyone would feel the need to search for her to begin with (let alone that the present title is the best redirect for this): her existence will only be evident after someone reads 'son-in-law' or 'daughter' in someone's biography, and from that point onwards there will be nothing new to be searched for anyway. Avilich (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you've just yeeted yourself out of Classics. P Aculeius (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph content is all on Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. The second paragraph appears to be a Wikipedian's deduction from the fact that begins the next paragraph - that Annius appears as son-in-law of Gnaeus in 63, not anything based directly on a reliable source. The third paragraph info is all on Annius Vinicianus (condemned by Nero), and the concluding paragraph has one sentence with info on Annius' page, and one that just says we don't know her death date, not the kind of information likely to be explicitly stated by Tacitus or Suetonius (the third listed source is a dead link with no indication it once hosted a WP:RS). As I see it, the only unique information in the whole article is of dubious provenance. Perhaps you could specify exactly which 'useful context' from a reliable source would be lost to Wikipedia were the article deleted rather than merged. Agricolae (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody mentioned the phrase "useful context"—only "useful content", which is essentially that this woman was the daughter of Corbulo, wife of Annius, and sister of Longina. And before someone brings up "inherited notability", that's not what this is about—the fact that Corbulo, Annius, and Longina were all connected via this woman is relevant to all of their articles, even if the lack of any other details mean that there's no need for an article about her on Wikipedia. It doesn't have to be "unique" content, in the sense of not appearing anywhere else on Wikipedia—that's not what merger is about. The merger process is about determining whether all of the useful, verifiable content has been added or moved to appropriate articles, doing so if it hasn't been done, and then converting the present article into a redirect to the most appropriate of them based on what anyone looking for it is likely to be searching for. If you find nothing to add to the other relevant articles because everything useful there is to say about the subject there, then you can skip to the last step—but of course by then you've already done the other steps.

Merger differs from deletion, because in deletion, you don't care whether any of the content can be found anywhere else—it just gets deleted, along with the title, nobody checks to see whether the subject is mentioned anywhere else, and nobody searching for this subject will arrive at any of the articles that might contain the information they're searching for—there won't even be any hint that it ever existed, or that a couple of dozen editors created, modified, and curated its contents for fifteen years—which is not usually a desirable result. The fact that the article existed for that long without being deleted suggests that people might search for it, as does the fact that multiple reference works have entries for this subject; and that fact alone suggests that we ought to have something, if only a redirect to an article that does contain the information. Merger is the process by which a subject that is better treated as part of another article is converted into a redirect to an appropriate place, where the subject is discussed; deletion is the process by which a subject about which nothing encyclopedic can be said is erased from the encyclopedia without a trace. This topic is clearly the former, not the latter, which is why if we follow Wikipedia policy, it must be merged, not deleted. P Aculeius (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misread, but you have basically answered my question - you cannot identify any useful content that merits merging. The main reasons for merging are to preserve information and preserve attribution. When the valid information is already on the target page(s), there is nothing to be merged and there is nothing that needs its attribution maintained. Among the explicitly listed valid reasons for deletion is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". While merging appears among a list of alternatives, there is no stipulation on that page of what must happen. And the whole 'the page has been here for a long time so people must be searching for this namespace' argument doesn't approximate reality. It has only existed under this namespace for 16 months, and in that time only one editor made substantive changes, immediately after editing her father's page so presumably led there by a blue link. No evidence anyone is searching for "Domitia (sister of Longina)". Agricolae (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purposes and procedures of merging—for purposes of determining whether the correct procedure is merger or deletion, it is irrelevant whether useful content already exists on other pages—that only becomes relevant once the merger process has begun. The contents of this page are useful—in fact essential—for other articles to be complete. An article on Corbulo that does not mention that one of his daughters was the wife of Annius would be incomplete, as would one about Annius that does not mention that he married a daughter of Corbulo, and was thus the brother-in-law of Domitian; and one about Longina would probably also be remiss if it did not mention her sister, the wife of Annius. You are correct that the article has only been under this title for a limited amount of time—but the number of editors who made changes after that move is irrelevant; this article has existed under three separate titles for fifteen years, and has some twenty distinct editors in that amount of time, and the entire page history under all titles will be lost if the article is deleted. You would also break the redirects from the old titles—that could of course be fixed, but experienced editors concluded that this was the best title, which strongly suggests that it is the most likely one to be searched for. Your reasoning amounts to, "this person is not important, therefore nobody will ever search for information about her, and thus it is imperative that there not be any redirect on Wikipedia—better that if someone goes searching for information, that they find no clue that an article ever existed." Why that would be better than being redirected to Corbulo or Annius or Longina, I have no idea. P Aculeius (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't misunderstand, I just don't agree - the content is so essential that it is already on the relevant pages, making a merge just for the sake of being able to say there was a merge but not actually merging anything completely superfluous. Also, I never said nobody would ever search for information about her - an absurd thing to say, which is why I didn't say it. The same applies to the supposed description of what my 'reasoning amounts to'. Maybe you would be better served by sticking with describing your own position, rather than misdescribing mine. As to "experienced editors concluded that this was the best title, which strongly suggests that it is the most likely one to be searched for", this is a less-than-accurate rendering: one single editor unilaterally, without prior discussion, renamed the page 16 months ago and nobody else noticed or cared enough to comment one way or the other. That is not the same as consensus, plus the dictates of disambiguation often result in what would be exceedingly unlikely search terms, so it is unsound to suppose 'best title' equates to 'most likely search term'. (The most common search would likely be just 'Domitia' without further description, which will lead straight to the name disambiguation page and on to the information desired, wherever it happens to be.) Finally, the repeated decrial that "the entire page history under all titles will be lost if the article is deleted" - if nothing on the page is worthy of preservation (being already found elsewhere) then there is no useful purpose to preserving the record of the (unfortunate, but that's Wikipedia for you) wasted effort - the page histories are there to serve their pages, not the other way around. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the topic isn't notable, and there is nothing here that deserves to be preserved in some form elsewhere.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough sources to justify having an article on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This would result in a complete mess if this closed any differently to the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Late Late Show with James Corden episodes. Many of the same participants are here advancing the same arguments. I'm not seeing any overriding delete argument that mark this out as being different to the other episodes. SpinningSpark 09:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes[edit]

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

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

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

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

A talk show is not episodic, so a list of episodes has no encyclopedic value and runs afoul of WP:IINFO. The fact that the show had guest hosts after Craig Ferguson can be noted in the main article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "keep per an AFD that closed as 'no consensus'" is a very convincing argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's exhausting to have to explain the definition of "indiscriminate" again, so I made it easy and simply pointed to my previous effort. I am also in agreement with those that argued in favor of keeping in that AfD. It may not be convincing to you, but I am hopeful that others read the previous AfD and are convinced that these lists should be kept. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles with episode information are common for notable tv shows, and Late Shows would be a good case for episode lists due to interest in guests. The fact that Craig Ferguson's version is a more notable version of a Late Night than other hosts incarnations seem to be a compelling reason to keep the Episode/Guest list. Deathstrike9k (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a valuable tool for notable shows. Craig's show was unlike anything else and with episodes from the run going up on Youtube, it has only added to the following as more and more people are finding the show that didn't catch it the first time it ran. The guide is great for those interested in finding episodes that contain certain guests. Walkinfaster (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Walkinfaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I see why this is relevant to the deletion question.69.71.12.172 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially this is only sourced to IMDB, and repeats info that is on IMDB. I see no reason for it to be in WP, especially without reliable sources. Lamona (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per arguments in >the last AfD. The show was respected as unique among late night shows for pushing the boundaries of the format and even of network television.

It evolved over its history with Ferguson creating a cast of characters using puppets (from hand puppets to an animatronic skeleton, and a pantomime horse); incorporating equipment failures; and using the show's normally behind-the-scenes staff on camera. Key episodes have begun to be documented in the full list with information about the show's evolution, and which is not included in IMDB, but drawn from the news and the 1300 episodes in the Youtube archive.

The show was covered in the news for notable monologues or performances about once every four to six months. It again appeared in the news when Ferguson's 2007 Britney Spears monologue again went viral early this year. The show is rated (in the admittedly highly subjective IMDB) second only to Johnny Carson. 69.71.12.172 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@69.71.12.172: And which of the many points in your filibuster meets WP:GNG? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— 69.71.12.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to severe health problems, I can no longer edit frequently and have dispensed with logins. My former user name was User:Peacedance, under which none of the over 3000 edits I made from 2009 to 2019 were made on this or related articles.

On notability, individual items in list articles aren't required to be notable, a point covered in the >the previous AfD. Most of the points made above have been made in major entertainment press outlets, and can be documented as such. 69.71.12.172 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I've tried to argue in the past we don't need guest lists for daily talk shows, as long as they're properly sourced they're not causing any harm...and harm would be done if we tossed out the guest host article, as we'd have to clumsily throw that info into a textwall into the overall LLS article. Also tiring of the nominator's attacks on individual votes! just because of edit counts/IP status; please stop doing so. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least two editors were clearly brought here from outside forces, as one has never edited anything before. And at what point is "doing no harm" a reason to keep? The episode lists are utterly unsourced. And listing all the guest hosts in any format is WP:IINFO. This is Wikipedia, not IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's canvassing, it'll be found out. As long as it's not a brigade of "Do not delete (spam 64 social media pages)" obvious types, I have no problems with the IPs in this discussion. Nate • (chatter) 22:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said at the AFD for this last year: This is valid information that would not all fit in the main article, so these are valid spinoff articles, done by season since that's the only reasonable way to do it. Dream Focus 16:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yearly lists. Weak keep List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes. On the whole I think this is WP:IINFO and provides no valuable information, but the main List of The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson episodes could be kept as a place to house the episode information if someone wants it. Natg 19 (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because of size restrictions, this information can't fit on the main article, so needs to be hived off into these pages. THere is a lot of interest in this show and his guest stars, so its worth keeping and of interest to the readers. Its already survived one AFD. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It "survived" because there was no consensus either way. Consensus can change. Also, what proof is there that this is a topic worth having a list about? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the information can't fit on the main article is not just because of size, but even then, the sheer size of the whole of it indeed shows how this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE information which wouldn't fit on any article, because it is well beyond the scope of what should be included in an encyclopedia, which is a summary of knowledge... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete years list and create a single article with notable entries. SignificantPBD (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not a TV guide/IMDB. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my own previous nomination, because this simply does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a TV guide; not an indiscriminate collection of trivial information, not a fansite for hosting WP:FANCRUFT; and most certainly not a place to host content which, for the most part, does not have any reliable secondary source (which is what an encyclopedia should be based on) to verify the information within. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of Poland during the Piast dynasty. There is consensus to not keep all these separate articles. There is no clear consensus how to otherwise organize the topic area, but that can be left to the consensus of interested editors. As an interim solution, redirection to the article covering the entire period appears most appropriate. Sandstein 08:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Poland (c. 960–1025)[edit]

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

First part in a series of articles created by user User:Artemis Andromeda about Polish "states":

Duchy of Poland (c. 960-1025)
Kingdom of Poland (1025-1031) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duchy of Poland (1031-1076) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kingdom of Poland (1076-1079) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duchy of Poland (1079-1138) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duchy of Poland (1138-1227) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kingdom of Poland (1295-1296) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kingdom of Poland (1300-1320) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
United Kingdom of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of these are created by copying content from already existing articles on Polish history (e.g. History of Poland during the Piast dynasty). Such a division is factually incorrect; the time periods correspond to the periods in which the ruler of Poland wore the royal crown. In principle, this did not cause any administrative changes that would justify the creation of a separate article. The fact that Bolesław II the Bold crowned himself in 1076 and was dethroned three years later is not a sufficient basis to divide Polish history into three sub-periods. Besides, already from the 11th century the Polish state was referred to in sources as "regnum Poloniae", even if none of the rulers was strong enough to crown himself. Unnecessary multiplication of entities and duplication of content that is already well described on Wikipedia. Marcelus (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the one who created all this articles, and I would like to add a few things to this discussion. Firstly, let me open with the statement, that I acknowledge my mistake in separating the entity from years 960-1138 into a separate auricles, as they indeed were a single state, with different titles of its monarch. However, everything since 1138, were completely different entities with drastically different political systems from one another. Let's start with Duchy of Poland (1138-1227). In 1138, duke of Poland, seperated the state into smaller duchies that were given under the control of his sons, reforming the state into the confederation, somewhat similar to, HRE, while before that, Poland was a unified singular state. The members of such confederation were vassals of the High Duke, who was the leader of the state. Then, in years 1227-1295, there wasn't any Polish state, as the title of High Duke was abolish, and all duchies become independent, ending the confederation. The Kingdom of Poland (1295-1296), was a completely separate entity from other Polish kingdoms/duchies on the list, as it was a standalone short-lived attempt in recreating the title of King of Poland, that only controlled Greater Poland and Pomerelia, as other Polish duchies, such as Krakow, or Masovia, were still independent. Then Kingdom of Poland (1300-1320), was a proper reestablishment of the confederation of Polish duchies under the King of Poland, that eventually however ended with fauiler, and 14 years of interregnum period, with Polish duchies still pretty much remaining de facto independent from the centralized power. Then, the United Kingdom of Poland was establishmed in 1320, with coronation of Władysław I Łokietek, and abolishing all smaller duchies, and formed a unified kingdom. Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really changed in 1138, as Poland was divided into separate provinces basically after the death of each ruler. This time the division just happened to be more permanent. It is not true that Poland did not exist in the years 1227-1295, there was a sense of unity between the Polish lands ruled by members of the Piast dynasty, there was just no one powerful enough to impose his will on the others. Conventions of princes were held, the unity of the state was personified by a church metropolis, and the whole country was called Polonia. Przemysł II did not create a separate state, as you say, but he crowned himself king of Poland, although he only managed to cover two large provinces with his power. Both Wenceslaus II and Ladislaus the Short regarded themselves as successors to Przemysl II. The only significant moment would be the fall of the so-called First Polish State in 1031-34, Casimir I actually built the state from the beginning, on slightly different principles. Other periodisations as regards statehood are not justified. The term kingdom of Poland refers to the Polish state from the coronation of Bolesław Chrobry in 1000 or 1025 until the fall of the state in 1795. Then we have the Congress Kingdom (Congress Poland) and the German-created Kingdom of Poland (1917-1918). A separate entity, not identical and existing alongside the kingdom, is the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, created in the mid-14th century. Other divisions and administrative changes, the appearance and disappearance of crowned rulers, are very well described in articles on Polish history, there is no point in multiplying entities beyond measure.Marcelus (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Every few years some user will decide to rewrite the history of Poland subarticles into whatever they like. This really needs to stop, and the only way to do so is through a WP:RFC on which Periodization system, based on reliable sources, to adopt. We also have the 'history of' series of articles, as seen in the Template:History of Poland and the 'states of' series represented by this one, which totally bypasses the old and elegant system as seen in Template:Polish statehood. While I support such a split (history of a state is a subarticle of the state article), the split articles pre Crown of the Kingdom of Poland (1385–1795)/Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) is, IMHO, not good. United Kingdom of Poland (1320–1386) borderline, as it still is not just the 'history of', but IMHO all of Andromeda's creations (from Kingdom of Poland (1300–1320) onward) are just unnecessary 'history of' duplications. I'd support restoring Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385), which had the proper structure (not just history, but politics, military, economy sections, etc.), although I am amenable to see it split into pre-fragmentation, fragmentation, and post-fragmention entries (i.e. Kingdom of Poland (1025–1138), Kingdom of Poland (1138–1320), United Kingdom of Poland (1320–1386), per pl:Szablon:Historia Polski). The other one that would remain would be Duchy of Poland (c. 960–1025). I'd also ask Andromeda to show us what periodization they used for their split; if that cannot be shown, this split needs to go simply as WP:OR. Anyway, a big problem we have right now is a form of WP:POVFORK, as the articles written by Andromeda are just 'history of' and as such they duplicate the existing 'history of' series, just with different periodization. That's chaotic, and hence my support for restoring the situation where we have the one, single, state-level parent article (or two, Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) in this version+Duchy of Poland (c. 960–1025)). Frankly, we need to have the article on periodization of Polish history, badly; I'll see if I can write one using sources like this. Ping User:Merangs and User:Orczar who IIRC were interested in this topic a while ago. PS. I'd also point out that this was a bad form de facto deletion of article by Andromeda, skipping AfDs and consultations with community. We need to restore the articles to their decade-lon stable version ASAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't think the problem lies in the periodization of Polish history, since this already exists:

It's not a perfect periodization, but it's as good as any (personally I would have preferred if the first three articles had included a time period - e.g. History of Poland (960-1385), but that's a secondary thing). Here we are dealing with various forms of Polish statehood. We certainly need a Kingdom of Poland article, but it should be a single article, describing the process of the emergence of royal power in Poland, covering the period from 1000 to 1795, explaining why some rulers crowned themselves and others did not and mentioning attempts to reconstruct the kingdom in the post-partition period - Congress Poland and the regency kingdom formed in 1916, but as an epilogue. I believe there may be an article under the title Monarchy of the First Piasts or First Polish State, describing the first state founded by the first half of the 10th century and collapsed in 1031-34. It is often distinguished in Polish historiography (e.g. Labuda, PIerwsze państwo polskie). This state actually collapsed and had to be rebuilt anew. The article Crown of the Kingdom of Poland should exist. But it should not be an entry describing the history of Poland, but concerning a certain political and legal concept, which was not created in 1385, but around the middle of the 14th century. The concept included the idea that: 1) the kingdom does not belong personally to the king, but to the Crown, which symbolizes the indivisibility and permanence of the state 2) the Crown symbolizes the state, which is not only in the hand of the ruler, but also communitas regni (in the Polish case the nobility and the clergy) 3) the Crown symbolises the whole state and not only the lands which are actually part of the kingdom (in the Polish case Silesia and Pomerania) 4) after the Union of Lublin, despite attempts to extend the concept of the Crown to the whole Commonwealth, it became the name of the "Polish" part of the united state. All this should be included in such an article. It was quite an original Polish creation, but there were oldest examples of similiar concepts in Europe. There were English, Bohemian, Hungarian, Aragonese Crowns, as political entities (classic Kantorowicz's The King's Two Bodies, Of course articles such as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Duchy of Warsaw, Congress Poland are inviolable and should exist alongside. The Duchy of Poland should be a disambiguation page leading to other pages. I consider the existence of the article United Kingdom of Poland to be nonsensical. Especially since it ends on 1385. BTW on Polish Wikipedia the mess isn't much better. BTW2, descriptions from Kingdom of Poland are basically WP:OR:

Kingdom of Poland, a kingdom existing from 1025 to 1031
Kingdom of Poland, a kingdom existing from 1076 to 1079
Kingdom of Poland, a kingdom in Greater Poland existing from 1295 to 1296, under the rule of Przemysł II
Kingdom of Poland, a confederal kingdom existing from 1300 to 1320
United Kingdom of Poland, a kingdom existing from 1320 to 1386
Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, a kingdom, which from 1385 to 1569 was an independent country, and from 1569 to 1795 was a member state of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Marcelus (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus You make a good point. Frankly, the PLC article has been the only one I've edited significantly, and that was long ago, when my research and writing skills weren't at their best. Anyway, I fully agree we need a series of articles on Polish statehood (as in, articles which are structured as describing a state, i.e. geography, politics, economy, and not just history), and generally speaking, yes, I think it makes sense to have a Kingdom of Poland main article, as the one proceeding the one about PLC (although technically I still think the Mieszko I Duchy period cannot be properly described as Kingdom). How to split it, exactly, I'd really prefer to base such a decision on a reliable historian (Labuda, sure). PS. Anyway, unless someone jumps in to do major rewrites now, my preferred solution is to restore this version, pre-AA's restructuring, and turn his(her?) article into redirects, since that older article was stable for many years and has the correct "state" structure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Except that the Kingdom of Poland article should not precede PLC, but exist in parallel, as the kingdom did not cease to exist either in 1385 or in 1569. As to the state of Mieszko I propose: First Polish state or Polish state (before 1039), which would describe the formation of the Polish state from the early 10th century and its decline after 1039. After his return to Poland, Casimir the Restorer rebuilt the state from scratch, with a new capital, church hierarchy etc.Marcelus (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus I think Crown of Poland describes the Kingdom of Poland within PLC. (The confusing part is that it also describes the entity pre-PLC). As for the pre-10? state, I am open to seeing what the literature says (our old article used the year 1025). Frankly, we have numerous ways to divide things, including yours, and that's why I strongly believe we need to reply on what real historians say. Which is why I still intend to research and write the periodization of Polish history article first, and only when I am done (unless someone does it first) I'll be able to strongly opine on what is the best solution (and hence, for now, I support restoring the articles to how they looked during the ~2010-2021 period). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PiotrusWell, I cannot agree with you completely. We are not talking about periodisation here. Only about describing political creations and concepts. Kingdom of Poland and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland are two different things that existed side by side in time. The problem does not concern the periodization of Poland's history at all, because this one is done well in my opinion (Poland in the Early Middle Ages, History of Poland during the Piast dynasty, History of Poland during the Jagiellonian dynasty, History of Poland in the Early Modern era (1569-1795) etc.).Marcelus (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcelusBut we are talking here about the periodization of Polish state. That's very related. I started pl:Periodyzacja historii Polski (work in progress) and I'll get back to you when I am done. For now, again, given I am unsure what is the best solution, I prefer restoring stable article had in the past decade (so, roughly, I agree with you that we need to revert Andromeda's edits, but you have not proposed what to do to replace them, hence my vote to restore and redirect). If you intended to write a series of new articles, you are welcome to do so, but we need something in the interim. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Not really, articles dividing Polish history into periods already exist (I mentioned them in a previous post), here we are talking about Polish states.Marcelus (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus Periodization of Polish states is very much a thing too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with last item) Remove these to restore the series of articles that we used to have (perhaps still do), per Marcelus. The whole series of creations results from the fallacy that a ruler taking a new title creates a new sovereign state and thus requires a new article. The changes in status (Duke to King and vice versa) did not create a new polity, only a new status for an existing one. The history of Poland is slightly complicated because at some periods there were multiple polities. For example Silesia was at one period a Polish duchy. Since WWII it has again been part of Poland, but not for many centuries between. Equally, at times, the ruler of one polity also ruled another, perhaps by a personal union. In the 18th century the electors of Saxon were sometimes also kings of Poland, but that does not mean that Poland and Saxony ceased to exist in favour of an allegedly merged state, when in fact each retained its own institutions. Only where there was a split, so that two successor states went in completely different directions should new articles be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Poland. Sandstein 06:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to prior configuration - These new articles were a unilateral attempt to reconfigure how Wikipedia deals with large swaths of Polish history. Some of the article divisions are based what are effectively nothing more than semantic distinctions, plus WP:NOPAGE - even if a case can be made for these being distinguishable entities, that doesn't mean that we must deal with them all on separate pages. Such major reconfiguring should go through RfC, rather than creating duplicate timelines and trying to sort it out by AfD. Best approach is to return to status quo ante and work forward from there in a more considered manner to decide how best to divide medieval Polish history. Agricolae (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin query: @Agricolae, Peterkingiron, Piotrus, and Marcelus: Could you please rephrase your opinions to indicate whether you want to delete, redirect or merge all or each of these articles? Otherwise, the closer will not be able to determine what exactly the outcome of this discussion is. Sandstein 08:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein True, this is a bit complex. Let me repeat my preferred solution: restore this article an redirect all nominated entries to it, except the United Kingdom of Poland and Duchy of Poland (c. 960-1025), which I am fine with existing separately. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should all be redirected to History of Poland during the Piast dynasty, from which much of their content was copied, or simply deleted, with no bar on recreation after a formal discussion over whether/how best the history during this broad period should best be subdivided. Agricolae (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them, Kingdom of Poland article should cover the period since the start of 11th century until the last days of Polish monarchy, with definition similiar to Kingdom of France: is the historiographical name or umbrella term given to various political entities of ~~France~~ Poland in the medieval and early modern period.Marcelus (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just FWIW, we have a single article covering the Kingdom of Navarre, beginning when what became the kingdom was probably nothing but a tribal cheifdom and perhaps a frontier province of the Caliphate of Cordoba, through semi-autonomy, petty-kingdom, dominant monarchy, appenage to the French crown, and formal disolution, spanning multiple dynasties and even a change in the name of the entity (Pamplona, then Navarre), all in a single article, which is basically analogous to the approach being suggested here, rather than slicing and dicing every time there was a political or stylistic change. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Banister[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft-deleted in 2021. Current form has lousy sourcing, most of which isn't even about him at all. Could find no better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I realized in reviewing this article that sources from NYT, WaPo and WSJ are behind paywalls. I first added relevant text in the quote parameters for those sources to make them more accessible for verification. Then I checked the Internet Archive and discovered that NYT and WaPo, at least, are fully archived, so I "rescued" those articles, leaving the quoted material in the articles' references for convenience.

I agree that the sourcing for Banister's bio is was somewhat thin. The Forbes source is more about the "soft porn" site Zivity than about Banister, and the Rand Paul/Ted Cruz donations are little more than passing mentions. I did find a FoxNews interview, a primary source that I added as an external link.

Clearly, Cyan Banister has had/sought far more coverage, and I began to think perhaps the two articles should be merged to "Cyan and Scott Banister". But I came across this and this, and concluded a merge would not be appropriate. Not exactly verklempt, more like meh. So...

Keep based on three sources: The Ali Partovi piece in TechCrunch, the James Gleick NYT piece, and the Robert Guth WSJ source, each providing coverage that in my opinion meets the WP:N policy definition: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found two book sources, Jimmy Soni's 2022 book, The Founders: The Story of Paypal and the Entrepreneurs Who Shaped Silicon Valley and Michael Ellsberg's The Education of Millionaires, Everything You Won't Learn in College About How to Be Successful. Both have enough text visible on Google Books to be useful for verification, and I now have Soni's book on Kindle, so will add more from that source as I have time. A third source is a 2012 Master's Thesis from Universidade Católica Portuguesa, ~~so less reliable for our purposes~~ that turns out to have cited sources already used in this article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Paypal Mafia. Good enough for me. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I knew Scott at UIUC and he is worth knowing about. 2604:2D80:DF03:4D00:81B7:B27D:1E2A:970C (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I'm paranoid, but there may be an effort to erase Scott Banister from Wikipedia. An article about his first company, Submit It! was PROD'd a few days ago and his entry in Paypal Mafia was deleted previously ([13]). — Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brunnock, it looks like his removal from Paypal Mafia was a misguided deletion, rather than a de-linking, after the first "soft delete" of the Scott Banister bio 15 months ago. According to the PROD of Submit It!, there were only primary sources. I have created a new Submit It! article, so feel free to add content there if you like. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I found 2 more relevant sources and referenced them in the article, bringing the total of RS to seven, in case anyone is counting:

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources linked. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and I don't think a 3rd relist is going to bring about one. Star Mississippi 14:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth planet (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Is the Zecharia Sitchin book The 12th Planet or 12th Planet (musician) the primary topic? This page should be moved to the base title if there is no primary topic; otherwise, it can be deleted per WP:2DABS with one article having a hatnote to the other. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We don't have an article on it (if we did the case would be clearer) but I suspect that Twelfth Planet Press may be notable, and unrelated to the other two. It appears to be an Australian small press mostly dealing with speculative fiction. It is mentioned in about 50 of our articles, in part because many of its publications have been nominated for notable awards. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the press aside for the moment, from the edit history of the article we have these candidates:
- 12th Planet (musician) — This is obviously a valid candidate for a redirect.
- Eris (dwarf planet) — This was never described as the twelfth planet, but was once tentatively the tenth planet, as recorded in many places including (for just one example) ISBN 9783319098944 page 49 (Springer, 2014). So this is not a valid candidate for a redirect.
- The 12th Planet, Nibiru (Sitchin), and Nibiru (hypothetical planet) — These, twelfth planet, Nibiru (proposed planet) (AfD discussion), and 12th Planet, currently all redirect to Zecharia Sitchin. Clearly the two "Nibiru" titles placed here should have properly gone at the Nibiru disambiguation (which has Sitchin), not here. But the book title is a valid candidate for a redirect for a mis-spelling of its alternative title, The Twelfth Planet, which is also a redirect.
- 5 Astraea — One can find reams of 19th century sources, from encyclopaedias to lectures by astromoners, describing 1 Ceres as the first minor planet, but no-one at that time calling it either the seventh planet or the eighth planet. This is similar. By the time of its discovery the separation between major/primary and minor/secondary planets was widespread in reference works, and no-one called it the twelfth planet. It's the fifth minor planet (per, one of many examples, "The Asteroid Question" in an 1891 issue of All the Year Round). The only source that I can find supporting twelfth planet is a vastly anachronistic book published in 2014 by David A. Weintraub, an explanation that doesn't use the actual contemporary terminology. So this is not a valid candidate for a redirect. 5 Astreae was never called this.
In addition:
- Charon (moon) — There's actually a far better case for this as twelfth planet than there is for 5 Astreae. There are sources such as ISBN 9780387778051 page 248 (Springer, 2010) that do record its tentative identification as the twelfth planet, even if that never actually happened in the end. But there aren't that many, and this is on the borderline of validity, I think, nudging from the side where it is not a valid candidate.
I'm inclined to think that this is equal weight between the musician and the book, and neither is really a primary topic. Search Google News, and the musician is by far the expectation. Search Google Books and the pseudoscience is the expectation. I'm not sure that we can weigh the one over the other. They're both the most expected in their individual niches, but the only prioritization criterion between the twain is that the musician is at least real.
Twelfth Planet Press being notable would solidly make the case for this disambiguation for me. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be. There are lots of "About Twelfth Planet Press" blurbs in its own books, but little to nothing that I can find outside of that that documents it and could support an article on it. So it's 2 things to disambiguate, and I'm inclined towards equal-weight personally, although I could compromise with having the musician as the primary topic if that's the consensus.
Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to the base title per WP:NOPRIMARY: we have two topics, neither of which can clearly be called the primary, and two is enough. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two entries, make one the primary, and hatnote it. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been on AFD for over a month and is clearly not going to get deleted. Anyone wanting to merge is welcome to and does not need a further consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Trend[edit]

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

Article citations are virtually nonexistent aside from one source which isn’t available online. Likely fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Small but historically important political groups are absolutely meet the notability criteria on Wikipedia. As for the complaint that the source "isn’t available online", since when is that a rule about citable sources?! This book is a normally published, citable book that's in its second edition now, and absolutely meets the criteria for WP:RS and WP:PUBLISHED. [14] The latter rule specifically says "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Peter G Werner (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this tiny bit of content to a suitable article such as New_Communist_movement#Origins. I can't see a WP:GNG pass. There is no inherent notability in a political movement. The freedom road reference can be found here [[15]] - a now deleted essay on the Freedom Road Socialist Organization website. It's hard to judge its reliability or independence from the topic but I would judge it WP:QUESTIONABLE. The other source given - the book Revolution in the Air has its own Wikipedia page which does not mention "The Trend". Springnuts (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the FRSO is probably the most rational of all the US NCM organisations and, relatively speaking, the least doctrinaire and sectarian. So, I would consider the Ethan Young piece, with usual caveats applied given the source, as reliable. Moreover, the length of Young's piece shows there's more than a "tiny bit of content" available. Combined with the discussions in Elbaum's Revolution, there is enough to scrape over the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that at least some of the prose is useful but not clear whether to keep or merge. Boldly relisting for a third time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to London Symphony Orchestra. ✗plicit 09:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sogno n° 1[edit]

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

Unreferenced, fails WP:GNG. I started a PROD, and it was opposed by the author "because the album is it about is the first tribute to De André after this death and it is important for that reason." It's important is not a valid argument in notability. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 03:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most are sources in Italian. The article only cites liner notes. I can't see any sources that would help support notability. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to London Symphony Orchestra. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. If anyone can present to me reliable sources about the album in Italian, then I'll change my vote. SBKSPP (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Astrea Academy Dearne. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thurnscoe Comprehensive School[edit]

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

Non notable school that does not meet WP:N and WP:ORG. Whiteguru (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: Aside from the former head teacher being awarded OBE, my searches are not finding anything to indicate that this former school attained notability. A redirect to Astrea Academy Dearne where the school is mentioned could be an alternative outcome. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Astrea Academy Dearne probably makes sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Astrea Academy Dearne. No evidence of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Astrea Academy Dearne. But no reason to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Heart ^(talk) 14:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donnell Washington[edit]

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

Rather unnotable guy that fails WP:SPORTBASIC and the only thing he has going for him is that he was drafted into the NFL, however never played a single game. Sources found are very trivial. Heart ^(talk) 05:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and American football. Heart ^(talk) 05:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never played, doesn't have significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with significant coverage such as this [16][17][18] (I added them all to the article). Whether he played professionally or not is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether he was covered or not, which he was both during his college and professional years. Alvaldi (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several more sources to the article, including these [19][20][21]. The article now has several sources of significant coverage from multiple publications spanning multiple years. Alvaldi (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alvaldi has demonstrated that the subject passes GNG by quite some way Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, thanks to the people who added content! I have withdrawn this nomination! Heart ^(talk) 14:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10. Per WP:BOLD. Four votes to redirect seems like enough. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laziz Rustamov[edit]

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

Reality show contestant who fails WP:GNG, with no established notability outside being a contestant of Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Philippines, and Uzbekistan. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10. Fails WP:NACTOR per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NACTOR. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10. Per WP:BOLD. Five votes is enough here. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Guerrero[edit]

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

Reality show contestant who fails WP:GNG, with no established notability outside being a contestant of Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10. Fails WP:NACTOR per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, brief stint on show. Easily redirected to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10, as does not warrant solo article. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:NACTOR. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been expanded and improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Jois[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Archana Jois

This BLP still does not establish general notability for its subject. A previous article was deleted in 2019, saying that she had only appeared in one major film, and was too soon for acting notability. She has now appeared in another film which is a sequel to the first. Her appearance in this sequel saves this article from a G4 deletion.

She has also appeared in Vijayaratha, which does not have an article and maybe should have an article. However, neither this article nor the sources support general notability. This article doesn't say anything except that she exists. The references don't say anything about her except that she exists. The references are almost all about the films, and are only passing mentions of her.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Times of India	Says that the subject is an actress	Yes	No. We knew that.	No?	No
2	The Hindu	Interview with subject	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	Bollywood Life	Advance description of KGF 2	Yes	No	?	No
4	zeenews.india.com	Review of KGF 2	Yes	Not about the subject	Probably	Yes
5	Times of India	Review of Vijayaratha	Yes	Not about the subject	No?	Yes
6	NewIndianExpress.com	Review of KGF 1	Yes	Not about the subject	Probably	Yes
7	pragativadi.com	News about revenue from KGF 2	Yes	Not about the subject	?	Yes
8	onmanorama.com	Hype about KGF 2	Yes	Not about the subject	?	No

She may or may not be notable. This article does not speak for itself and does not establish her notability, and the sources do not establish her notability. Maybe the originator can find real sources about her within seven days and build an article. If not, the article should be either deleted or moved to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Delete - I was unable to discover any English-language sources that could be used to argue that the subject is notable. Please ping me if new suitable sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Changing to keep after reading the sources identified by DareshMohan. Thanks for the ping, Robert McClenon. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for being a television actress serial lead as well. Sources here and here. DareshMohan (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral in place of implied Delete as nominator. DareshMohan has found two sources that provide independent secondary significant coverage. Not providing a Keep at this point because the text of the article still doesn't explain what is notable about her, leaving it to the reader to read the sources, and readers should not be required to read the sources. That is, expand the text of the article slightly to summarize what the sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:BennyOnTheLoose. You asked to be notified if new sources were found (and they are in English). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:BLP, WP:NACTOR. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is well developed, and satisfies WP:NACTOR. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be moot now the article has been expanded, but the page was created by a sock account that is now blocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ncell Cup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Ncell Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable tournament. Fails GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Nepal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ncell Cup - no independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ncell Cup. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macherla Niyojakavargam[edit]

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

This film fails the WP:NFF qualification that it needs since it is a future film. SP013 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet NFF requirements yet -- Ab207 (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. BOVINEBOY2008 17:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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